The "Passion" of The U.S. Constitution...again

I have Many "Liberal" or "Progressive" political feelings but amending the U.S. Constitution is not one of them. The Constitution is, after all, the American "Gospel" that the U.S. Supreme Court (the St Peter/God level of the American justice system) bases the legitimacy of its decisions upon.

This is very serious stuff. Rulings of the USSC directly affect the lives and liberty of U.S. citizens, not in the foggy realms of the hereafter, but right now in "this life". Therefore, I sense wrongness involved with Bush's call for a Constitutional Amendment banning "Gay Marriage". I smell a pandering rat whose odor emanates from the incumbent's desire to gather votes from the religious right (RR). Intertwined with this olfactory repugnance is the age old attempt to "save us" from ourselves via legislated behavior imperatives.

The passion involving both the suffering and intense conviction we see from the RR comes from deeply held religious beliefs that then evolve into this group's morals. Now we see, again, the effort to impose this group's morals upon all U.S. citizens with the ultimate attempt at legislating morality by amending the Constitution. This group is again trying to eliminate that very American concept of personal choice and tolerance of others that allows them to practice their own beliefs. Father, forgive them their short sightedness... but we need not.

The proposed amendment to prevent public U.S. Flag burning for the purpose of dissent was at best silly and at worst, well, unconstitutional. But what makes this attempt at amending the constitution so dangerous is that once an amendment this conceptually becomes the basis and foundation for a succession of laws similarly directed. Do we as U.S. citizens want to start down that slippery slope of ever decreasing personal liberties by creating such an instrument of intolerance towards others? From my limited readings and education I seem to remember the prophet Jesus proposing something quite different.

As I had mentioned on another forum this is really a matter for the states to decide at their level. This allows for the people of individual states to choose their own laws regarding the issue while allowing a more nuanced interpretation of the public's view on this matter. Critically, this method also allows for a more flexible forum if the citizens of the state change their minds, rather like many did towards "inter-racial" Marriage.

A deeper problem with the proposed amendment is that, as worded, it proscribes any state from even considering and addressing the issue. It demands that thoughtful resolution is no longer needed and, indeed may actually be illegal. In essence, we are not to "worry our pretty little heads" about it.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with making laws and amendments based upon morality but first we must ask the question: Whose morality becomes the standard? Is said morality to be based on a collection of 2000 year old documents that fit the legal definition of hearsay or, more properly, upon "Self Evident Truths" agreed upon by public debate and collective societal morals? Did we find a need to pass a Constitutional Amendment against the murder of individual private citizens?

Respectfully,

JM