Reading notes

From Wednesday, February 25’s New York Times editorial page:

With his re-election campaign barely started and his conservative base already demanding tribute, President Bush proposes to radically rewrite the Constitution. The amendment he announced support for yesterday could not only keep gay couples from marrying, as he maintains, but could also threaten the basic legal protections gay Americans have won in recent years. It would inject meanspiritedness and exclusion into the document embodying our highest principles and aspirations. …

The Constitution has been amended over the years to bring women, blacks and young people into fuller citizenship. President Bush’s amendment would be the first adopted to stigmatize and exclude a group of Americans. Polls show that while a majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, many would prefer to allow the states to resolve the issue rather than adopting a constitutional amendment. They understand what President Bush does not: the Constitution is too important to be folded, spindled or mutilated for political gain.

I note that this proposed amendment is quite accurately being referred to as the “Hate Amendment” and, even more to the point, the “Anti-Marriage Amendment.” It is indeed both.

I am not wired to be a person who sees things as black or white, generally speaking. But in this, perhaps I am: I think any politician’s attempt to alter the Constitution to remove liberties instead of guarantee them implies (1) no understanding of — or no regard for — its spirit, and (2) Instant Disqualification from holding elected office.

Yeeerrrr out. Period.

[also archived at Truthout]