President Bush’ Mandate
© Carlos T. Mock/Enkidu 2004
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
The thinking at the time was that these rights were held only by property
owners (white free men). That is no longer the interpretation of the
American Declaration of Independence.
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” According
to the 9th Amendment from the Bill of Rights, all citizens of the
US should have the same rights whether listed in the Constitution or not.
After the Lawrence Decision, the majority of the Supreme Court chose
the "due process/privacy" rational to overrule Bowers v.
Hardwick. O'Connor chose the equal protection argument. She may have
chosen that argument, because it allows her to invalidate the Texas statue
without overturning Bowers v. Hardwick (in which she voted with the
majority). But the equal protection argument has fascinating implications;
basically that government can pass no laws based on animus towards gay
people that treat gay people differently than other people. The majority
says that the equal protection argument is "tenable". If that
counts as an endorsement, then there are 6 votes for treating gay people
as entitled to equal protection under the Constitution.
Since all states have always recognized all Canadian marriages, it will
only be a matter of time before one state says we honor all Canadian
marriages, except gay marriage. That will be a perfect test of the power
of the equal protection argument. In Scalia's dissent he explicitly states
that both the due process/privacy and equal protection arguments undermine
laws preventing marriage of same sex couples.
So, now, the President, following his mandate from the religious right,
wants a constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage. Does the
president think that gays and lesbians are not US citizens equal under the
law? How far should the President’s new mandate roll the constitution
back into history? Should we deny the vote to women - should we legalize
slavery? Should we withhold medical treatment and information from gays
and lesbians because the religious right thinks they are immoral citizens?
(The State of Michigan is already trying to do this). Or worse yet, should
we deny kids protection (condoms) from HIV because we feel sexual
intercourse is immoral? (Abstinence only policies). Does his mandate
overrule his oath of office and duty to defend the constitution of the
United States? Do you only apply protection under the law to straight
Christians? How about Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists…?
How about gays, lesbians, bisexual, transgender citizens?
Does his mandate for “morality” overrule the” law of the land”
that was founded on the principles of separation of Church and State?
Perhaps The President thinks that the “law of the land” still only
applies to white, heterosexual, free men who own property.
|
Los
Martes de Enkidu
