> What it has to do with what she was talking about is that the same "leave > the Constitution alone" argument she used in the article could be used by > someone else for a different issue, such as the ones I used for > illustration.� Her argument is not "Leave the Constitution alone, period" > as the headline of the article might suggest, but more like "Leave the > Constitution alone except for issues I agree with."� I didn't say that a > Constitutional amendment defining marriage such as she describes in the > article is necessarily a good idea or a bad idea:� I simply pointed out > that the same argument she makes against it in the article could have been > � and indeed has been � made by those opposed to such thinhings as the > decision in _Roe v. Wade_, etc. >
Except, those deal with interpretations of existing Amendments, rather than
calls for adding new Amendments. Argument over what is already in the
Constitution is unending, and there's nothing wrong with that. Disputing a particular
interpretation is NOT the same thing as disputing a call to amend the
Constitution anew, and should not be confused with opposing a proposed amendment.
Which is why I also asked if she� would have said "Leave the Constitution alone" in 1866 when the Fourteenth Amendment was proposed to give rights to former slaves . . .
_____
�If anyone does not know who Cynthia Tucker is, she is a black woman who was born and grew up here in Alabama and now is an editorial writer for the _Atlanta Constitution_.
-- Ronn! :)
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
