Another Rant By: BettyJean Kling
In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don’t think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we’ve gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?
Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. … But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that’s fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t. Nobody ever thought that that’s what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don’t need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don’t like the death penalty anymore, that’s fine. You want a right to abortion? There’s nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn’t mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and pass a law. That’s what democracy is all about. It’s not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/01/scalia-constitution-does-not-p.html
If ever we had cause to get three states on board- it is now! We are the majority- Let’s get this straight once and for all- write it into the Constitution so there is never again any question! Clearly Scalia tells us we are not included which leaves us no alternative but to insist that we be included or refuse to pay tax until we are and until The Constitution includes the following words: Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Filed under: Uncategorized |