Washington Post: "Ordinary legislation -- not constitutional amendments -- should express the community's view that marriage 'shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.' To use the Constitution for prescriptions of policy is to shackle future generations that should have the same right as ours to enact policies of their own. To use the Constitution as a forum for even our most favored views strikes a blow of uncommon harshness upon disfavored groups, in this case gay citizens who would never see this country's founding charter as their own.
"Let's look in the mirror. Conservatives who eloquently challenged the Equal Rights Amendment and Roe v. Wade for federalizing core areas of state law now support an amendment that invites federal courts to frame a federal definition of marriage and the legal incidents thereof."
Thanks to Andrew Sullivan for the link.
"denver 2006"
6:08:03 PM 
|
