Many have thus far weighed in on President Bush’s proposed marriage amendment. Aside from the political arguments in favor or against such an amendment, I see a major flaw in taking this issue to the Constitution.
The proposed amendment would amend the Constitution along with the first 10 amendments known as the Bill of Rights. Yes, Rights. As a nation, do we really wish to add to our Constitution an amendment which limits freedom? This is not the norm.
Indeed, the original 10 amendments found in the Bill of Rights, including amendments added after 1791, make liberal use of “shall not be denied,” “shall make no law,” “shall not be infringed” and “shall enjoy the right.”
I find it highly ironic that a president would wish to limit freedom within the confines of a document that sets out to protect the very rights enjoyed by the citizenry. It’s been done before (read: prohibition), but we all know where that amendment ended up.
I forsee the same such fate for any defense of marriage amendment in the event of its passing; it’ll only be a matter of time before it is repealed.