[continue]
Back in June, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a decisive 6 - 3 decision, proclaimed that gays and lesbians have privacy rights like everyone else. It overturned a 1986 decision (Bowers vs. Hardwich) that had been decided in favor of a Georgia sodomy law. Justice Kennedy said:
"Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. Bowers vs. Hardwick should be and is now overruled."
Dissenting Justice Scalia was outraged. And so was Bush, who said:
"If activist judges insist on redefining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process."
I am wondering what is an "activist judge"? Someone Bush disagrees with?
Why does Bush seek an amendment when there is a Defense of Marriage Act on the books? This act bans federal recognition of same-sex marriage. Isn't this enough? Bush gives an emphatic "NO.":
"There is no assurance that the Defense of Marriage Act will not, itself, be struck down by activist courts."
Again, the problem is the "activist courts." Bush is afraid that eventually the U.S. Supreme Court will say that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional because it deprives gays and lesbians of their civil rights. He does not want to allow this. So he favors an amendment to the constitution.
You can see how outrageous Bush's endorsement of the amendment is. He plans to have an amendment for depriving some citizens of their civil rights right next to the Bill of Rights, a list of civil rights we all cherish. He doesn't even want to wait until the courts decide. He wants to do it now for political reasons: divide and conquer.
Bush had promised to unite us. However, with this amendment he is dividing us more than we have ever been divided before.
This amendment does not protect marriage or anything else. It is an anti-civil rights amendment.
I am also unhappy with the position taken by both Kerry and Edwards. They say they are against gay marriage but for civil unions. This is an untenable position: those in "civil unions" are in a second class status next to those who are "married." Bush position is clear. He is against gay marriage, whatever name you give it.
I ask Kerry and Edwards:
"Are you for civil rights of gays and lesbians or are you against civil rights for gays and lesbians?"
Democrats have always been in favor of expanding civil rights. The gay marriage issue gives us an opportunity to fight once again in this noble endeavor. It is a winning issue for Democrats. It is a winning issue if we come out directly for civil rights of gays and lesbians. It is a winning issue if we fight against Bush's anti-civil rights amendment.
