Good argument
Feb. 25th, 2004 02:31 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
libertangoSlactivist hits at least one nail on the head regarding the push for a Constitutional amendment to privilege certain religious beliefs:
"(San Francisco Mayor) Newsom highlights the contradiction embraced by those who want to argue both that same-sex marriages are not constitutional and that the Constitution must be amended in order to make such marriages illegal.
If these marriages are not constitutional, then there is no need for the FMA (Federal Marriage Amendment).
If these marriages are constitutional, then one cannot argue that they are illegal or illegitimate.
The very effort to introduce and eventually ratify something like the Federal Marriage Amendment concedes the essence of Newsom's argument. Supporters of the amendment, therefore, are at least tacitly conceding that theirs is an effort designed to alter the Constitution in order to make it less inclusive than it is today."
"(San Francisco Mayor) Newsom highlights the contradiction embraced by those who want to argue both that same-sex marriages are not constitutional and that the Constitution must be amended in order to make such marriages illegal.
If these marriages are not constitutional, then there is no need for the FMA (Federal Marriage Amendment).
If these marriages are constitutional, then one cannot argue that they are illegal or illegitimate.
The very effort to introduce and eventually ratify something like the Federal Marriage Amendment concedes the essence of Newsom's argument. Supporters of the amendment, therefore, are at least tacitly conceding that theirs is an effort designed to alter the Constitution in order to make it less inclusive than it is today."
