Nutshell: if you believe in the rights to guns and booze, you best believe in the inalienable rights of gays too. Also know that if you seek an amendment to the constitution in order to patch up this loophole, you will also be forever eliminating this wonderful thing called state's rights. If you know your paranoid militia heritage (reference article 2 here), then surely you know the erosion of state's rights is about the worst possible thing that could happen to our democracy.
Sorry for the heaviness. We'll do some dick jokes later in the week. I'm not normally this riled up about stuff. I am not even gay. That is the point. This isn't about gay rights, this is about HUMAN rights!
Page 1 — Page 2
Article comments
1 - Chris Kent
I'm not normally this riled up about stuff. I am not even gay.
Thank you for informing us of your sexual preference. Had you been gay, well hell, this article would have collapsed like a house of cards......
2 - Phillip Winn
Not to interject any seriousness here or anything, but...
... Amending the constitution can be argued to erode states' rights, but since most of the amendments you mention that benefit various groups of people also theoretically conflict with state sovereignty, I'm afraid that "eliminating" is too strong a word. And I'm not even going to bring up Roe v. Wade.
In fact, a constitutional amendment is the only action the federal government can take that should interfere at all with the ability of any state to decide how to handle questions about marriage. And amusingly, an extremely high number of states need to sign on to put such a thing into place.
But it is possible, and it would "work" as it should.
Of course, a prohibition on alcohol didn't do so well, and it is possible that even a constitutional amendment would not work out long-term.