Sam Smith – While
the Supreme Court attempted to conceal its true feelings behind complicated legal
arguments, one paragraph of its anti-gay decision is particularly revealing:
Our society has come to the
recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social
outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth.
For that reason the laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances
must, protect them in the exercise of their civil rights.
Would it write such conditional sentences if it were speaking
of “black persons,” or women? Clearly the second sentence declares gay rights
not as inherently protected by the Constitution but as a result of what our
society has come to recognize. In other words, gay rights are merely a societal
choice of our time and in “some intances” worth defending.
The decision raises a number of other questions, Could a
baker deny a wedding cake to a mixed race couple, to Muslims, or even to blacks,
if this shop owner’s religion demanded it? Could a church ban blacks, gays or
Muslims from attending their services? And so on.
The Constitution requires the equal treatment of all
American citizens regardless of their ethnicity, sexual status, or beliefs.
Coming up with such a complex hypocritical justification for treating some
Americans differently is a step back towards a grim past that did us so much
harm.
No comments:
Post a Comment