Let’s Not Sully the Constitution

The Thirteenth Amendment, which amended a part of the original Constitution by banning slavery and indentured servitude, was ratified by the newly reunited states in 1865. I’m just guessing, but I doubt if there was widespread celebrating in the streets. In all probability, many Americans were at best indifferent to the amendment, and many — particularly in the South — certainly opposed it. But it was the right thing to do.

In 1920, the states ratified the Nineteenth Amendment, which said that the right to vote could not be denied because of sex. Once again, this amendment was probably not universally popular. But once again, it was the right thing to do.

Despite what would almost surely be widespread approval, an amendment banning gay marriage would be the wrong thing to do. It would go against the very essence of the Constitutional amendment process. In the first place, amendments are intended to make changes to what the Constitution already defines — and marriage is not something the Constitution gets into. Such an amendment would be blatantly out of place.

In the second place, it would reverse the trend that expands and clarifies rights established by the amendment process. In addition, it would contradict the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law. Since it’s been left up to the states to write laws governing marriage, the Fourteenth Amendment already prohibits those laws from establishing biases of any kind, except where legal age is involved.

Some candidates for Congress still cling to the gay marriage ban as a campaign issue, because it appeals to widespread homophobia. But in this case, as in cases in the past, the majority isn’t right.

Dear Voter

Come November you’ll be going into the voting booths, and you’ll be faced with choices. Hopefully by then your memory of a sweltering summer will still be fresh in your mind — because it may help you make a wise decision.

With luck this November you’ll be faced with clear choices inside that voting booth. On one side, you may find candidates who oppose gay marriage, abortion and flag burning. They will be appealing to your emotions. They will be hoping that you believe these issues are more important than all the others, because they want to get elected. And to them, there’s nothing more important — because they love to be in power, and they love to impose their sense of morality on you.

On the other side, you may find candidates whose goal it is to achieve energy independence. And part of their platform may include the rapid development of solar energy for widespread use. They’ll be appealing to your common sense. They’ll be hoping that you remember the heat and the power outages that resulted as demand for electricity exceeded our ability to provide it. They’ll be hoping you understand that in all that broiling sunshine there’s a tremendous reserve of unused energy, which could be used to bolster the existing power grid. They’ll be hoping that you think this is among the most important issues, because they too want to be elected. And that’s important to them too — because they don’t want you to die from the heat next year.

Much Ado About Stem Cells

Congress just passed a bill that would allow federal funding of stem-cell research, but not quite by a margin wide enough to override the president’s veto — which, by the way, was his first veto since his administration took office. You may wonder why the president used his veto power for the first time on a bill that seems to hold such great hope for cures of some of the most heart-breaking diseases and illnesses. Well, in his simple mind, the answer is simple. Research would require the destruction of a human embryo, and a human embryo is life. At the veto ceremony, he was surrounded by children who as embryos had been adopted and ultimately born. Not present were the countless frozen embryos that will never be adopted, that will instead be discarded.

Perhaps the president didn’t think of this when he made his politically charged decision. Perhaps he thinks when these unwanted frozen embryos are discarded they will reside eternally in some paradise somewhere. Probably not though. In all likelihood, when these embryos are discarded, they will thaw and decompose rapidly. That’s right — they will die. Not only will they fail to develop into a fully formed human beings after nine months, they will not save a single life nor help cure an incurable condition. They will not heal the chronically ill or repair a single permanently damaged person. These unwanted embryos will simply go to waste — condemned to eternal uselessness by a president who believes he understands the meaning of life.

So stick to your guns, Mr. President. Let these unwanted, unneeded frozen embryos die in vain. Think of them as you think of the thousands of young men and women you’ve sent to Iraq, also to die in vain.