Submitted by Roland Chlapowski, policy analyst on Fri, 12/09/2005 - 11:53am.
Paul,
Point well taken. The Supreme Court has not yet divined the presence of any explicit protections for sexual minorities in the Constitution. But I'd argue that to then make the leap and say that the Constitution does not protect this minority is wrong.
I would argue that such protections are in fact in there; that the Constitution outlines certain principles that can only *accurately* be interpreted in a way that prevents discrimination on the basis of innate, inborn characteristics (such as race, gender, and exual orientation), whether or not there has yet been a Supreme Court that has actually interpreted the document in this way. But this is an admittedly philosophical and polemical argument.
On a less abstract level, one could frame the issue of the rights of sexual minorities in terms of gender equality -as was done back when the Hawaii courts breifly legalized gay marriage in the 90's - and gender *is* an explicitly protected catergory in the Constitution. The argument goes as follows: it is only because of my gender that I am not allowed to marry this other person (of the same gender), and discriminating on the basis of gender is unjust.
In any case, I did inject into this narrow debate on domestic partner benefits the larger issue of gay rights. But, as some of the small-minded and prejudiced comments above indicate, in many people's minds this does come down to whether or not same sex couples should have the same benefits afforded to them that are afforded ton their straight counterparts. And I think that the answer to that is easy. I think that all men (and women) are created equal. End of story.
re: The Equal Benefits Ordinance
Paul,
Point well taken. The Supreme Court has not yet divined the presence of any explicit protections for sexual minorities in the Constitution. But I'd argue that to then make the leap and say that the Constitution does not protect this minority is wrong.
I would argue that such protections are in fact in there; that the Constitution outlines certain principles that can only *accurately* be interpreted in a way that prevents discrimination on the basis of innate, inborn characteristics (such as race, gender, and exual orientation), whether or not there has yet been a Supreme Court that has actually interpreted the document in this way. But this is an admittedly philosophical and polemical argument.
On a less abstract level, one could frame the issue of the rights of sexual minorities in terms of gender equality -as was done back when the Hawaii courts breifly legalized gay marriage in the 90's - and gender *is* an explicitly protected catergory in the Constitution. The argument goes as follows: it is only because of my gender that I am not allowed to marry this other person (of the same gender), and discriminating on the basis of gender is unjust.
In any case, I did inject into this narrow debate on domestic partner benefits the larger issue of gay rights. But, as some of the small-minded and prejudiced comments above indicate, in many people's minds this does come down to whether or not same sex couples should have the same benefits afforded to them that are afforded ton their straight counterparts. And I think that the answer to that is easy. I think that all men (and women) are created equal. End of story.