Do We Need a Special Constitutional Amendment Just For Gays?

LGBT writer Jennifer Finney Boylan was so upset by the Supreme Court’s Masterpiece Cakeshop decision this week that she penned an opinion piece for The New York Times calling for a change to the U.S. Constitution. Yes, Boylan has decided that if there is any business owner in America – any ONE in America, for that matter – that can still refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, then we need to pass an amendment specifically for gays, lesbians, genderfluids, and whatever other kinds of sexual classifications they come up with in the future.

As Boylan concedes in her opening, the Masterpiece decision was no great loss for LGBT Americans. In fact, the court’s ruling, while in favor of baker Jack Philipps, pertained more to the wording used by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission than on any material handling of the central question: Whether or not a religious business owner must violate their own beliefs to cater to every gay request that comes in the door. As far as we can know or tell, the question remains unanswered and will certainly be challenged again.

Boylan, perhaps uncomfortable with letting this matter be decided ultimately by a Supreme Court with more conservatives than liberals, thinks we should not wait until a similar case winds its way back to those hallowed halls.

“We lose when our rights are considered debatable,” she writes. “Even if the Supreme Court had ruled unanimously against the baker, in fact, L.G.B.T.Q. Americans would still be considered second-class citizens in many aspects of civic life. […] The only thing that will truly enshrine equal protection under the law for all Americans, including L.G.B.T.Q. people, is an amendment to the Constitution.”

The proposed text of what Boylan calls the “Dignity Amendment?”

“Equality of rights under the law shall not be abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex, sexual orientation or gender identity.”

Say, we already have that. It’s called the Constitution as it exists today.

We don’t need a special gay amendment for the same reason we don’t need an Equal Rights Amendment for women. Women and gays already enjoy all of the same rights of protection under the Constitution as their straight, male counterparts. Put another way, they have the same freedoms: Speech, Press, Religion, to Bear Arms, and so on down the line. What they do not enjoy are EXTRA freedoms, which is what people like Boylan would like them to have.

The primary aim of this movement is to relegate the right of free religious practice to the darkest corners of one’s private home. The left wants to essentially make that aspect of the First Amendment a thing of the past and replace it with a new one that says: Everyone must tolerate and accept every new gay identity we imagine and willingly submit to our every demand for respect. We suppose you could write up a constitutional amendment that says something like that.

Good luck enforcing it.

 


About admin