Gay marriage is now the topic. And it’s a pity since the debate is really about a word. I think you’d have a very hard time producing a majority who would always and forever deny any sort of companionship rights to gay couples. Do I think gay couples should be able to adopt? An argument can be made either way. Do I think gay couples should have hospital visitation rights, the right of inheritance and all that other fun legalese stuff? Sure. Why not?
Do I think gay couples should be able to claim the word marriage? Absolutely not. But that’s beside the point.
At this moment the point is less about whether or not gay couples have any sort of inherent rights apart from the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and more about whether elected officials have the right to break the law or unelected judges have the right to create new inherent rights out of thin air.
This sort of higgledy-piggledy has been going on for far too long. The San Franciscan situation is easily solved – you throw the mayor in jail. You don’t even need to make a declaration on the state of the “marriages” he thinks he’s permitted because since they are in clear violation of the state law they never happened at all. Case closed. The Massachussetts problem can be solved equally as easily. The judges simply have to declare that on second thought, this is a question best left to the people to determine through debate and legislation and remand the issue to the legislature or, better yet, order that a referendum on the question be held at the earliest possible moment.
If, however, these unaccountable robed wingnuts refuse to “doubt a little of themselves” at this critical juncture what are we to do? Nobody wants to tinker with the Constitution of the United States. Look at the mess we’ve made with the amendments we’ve passed so far. Hell, it’s been over 200 years and we still haven’t sorted out the meaning of the very first amendment. Still, the people must be heard. The absolute foundation of civilization cannot be so radically modified without a discussion. Insular Star Chambers tinkering with the building blocks of society cannot be tolerated.
Hence, a Constitutional Amendment. I have no doubt some idiot will read “emanations and penumbras” aplenty out of the text but to me it says very simply that the word marriage cannot be applied to any relationship other than that of a man and a woman. Outside of the reservation of the word marriage all bets are off – provided changes to the law are made by lawmakers, not judges.
Works for me.