If anyone is wondering why "conservatives" are now rallying behind an amendment to the federal constitution, it is because the courts can clearly not be relied upon to uphold the rule of law.
Since when do two wrongs make a right? Since when does one iniquity (if it is one, since it was and is being done in a spirit of helping people out) justify a second iniquity (unquestionably one, since it is done solely out of a spirit of hurting those people)? I'm not prepared to say that the city of San Francisco is right (although it is not a judge who STARTED this process - that was the mayor of the city, a mayor elected by the population), but I'm DEFINITELY prepared to say that the proposed amendment to the Constitution most certainly is WRONG.
There is nothing "conservative" about amending the Constitution to impose discrimination based on the narrow religious view of a minority of the people. (I realize that if the majority truly does not hold the view, the Amendment probably will fail to be ratified.)
Tom Beck
"I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never thought I'd see the last." - Dr. Jerry Pournelle
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
