Posted on 07/06/2004 5:29:01 AM PDT by traditio
What would happen if we passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman? Nothing. The courts would not obey it.
GLBT activists would not concede defeat, and usurping judges would be confirmed in their opinion of the stupidity and sinfulness of the American people. In a Massachusetts minute, a same-sex couple would file suit on the grounds that gender is a mere social construct and each person has a constitutional right to define his or her own gender or non-gender or mixed gender, to change the definition at any time, and to employ multiple contradictory definitions. Male and female are the shameful legacy of the binary oppositions of discredited Western metaphysics, they would claim, and imposing these rigid labels on the fluid and dynamic sexuality of oppressed peoples is a form of segregation. To speak of “bride and groom” or “husband and wife” is the moral equivalent of turning fire-hoses on civil rights marchers or bombing black churches. The Constitution is unconstitutional.
(Excerpt) Read more at makehasteslowly.com ...
Uhhhh....
Accurate title, at least.
Whereas, the 2nd amendment is self-enforcing.
BUMP
The point is that proponents of same-sex marriage, including justices of the Supreme Court, have not obeyed the Constitution, so there's no reason to believe that they would obey an amendment. The only thing that will work is to remove them from office.
Besides, an amendment implies that there is something wrong with the Constitution, not something wrong with the courts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.