I know right? What the hell does equal protection under the law have to do with the Constitution?
Well, they hated gay people when that clause was written, so we are duty-bound to hate gay people today. You see, some people were more equal than others when the constitution was drafted, so we need to keep it that way.
/sarc. off
I'll never understand why some people are so convinced that the founders intended that the constitution be forever applied
exactly as it was applied immediately after ratification, despite the fact that everything else in the world moved on. It's not like they were all asleep at the wheel when the Court announced (the already accepted view) that it had the power of judicial review. It's not like the founders were unaware that they supported importing the ever-evolving English Common Law into the Supreme Court's function. They talked about it at the convention, for chrissake! All but two founders agreed with it. They knew constitutional interpretation would change over time and intended as much.
I wonder if those posting about how giving gay people the benefit of equal protection of the laws would like to risk running an Op Ed objecting to Loving v. Virginia. After all, white people couldn't marry black people when the due process clause was written, and that dirty tyrannical Supreme Court relied on due process to say a law barring interracial marriage was unconstitutional. DIRTY DIRTY TYRANNY!
So get to it, you brave constitution-lovers who are mad at this tyranny! Write your local paper. Call your local radio station. Post on facebook. Tell the world that you think the Supreme Court should reverse Loving v. Virginia. Tell the world that that law barring interracial marriage is wonderful and constitutional.
You're not gonna do that. I know why, and it has precisely
nothing to do with the pretended stand against tyranny in opposing Ogberfell. It's simply that, due to progress, it's easier to take a stand against gay rights than it is against black rights given the state of progress in both positions. So, you're on safer ground saying that you think gay people should have equal rights but also that the Supreme Court had no business so deciding, than you would be saying you think the Supreme Court should go back on Loving v. Virginia.
I guess I didn't turn the sarcasm off. Oh well. I guess I take issue with people claiming that a stand in favor of injustice is actually some kind of principled stand against tyranny.
Why
should we maintain the same evil prejudices just because people had them 200 years ago? Maintaining them despite their being wrong isn't a stand against tyranny, it IS tyranny. (Besides, one can dream up a slippery slope argument in favor of or against
ANYTHING; they're almost always meaningless, and necessarily so. They're dreamed up.).