THE PRESIDENT'S MARRIAGE VOW: Chicago Tribune editorial

...The shame in all this is that the U.S. has been on a course toward greater acceptance and legal recognition of gays and lesbians. That process has been all but tossed aside as the country erupts in a cultural war that most Americans don't particularly want and certainly don't need.

Gays and lesbians have the right to equal protection under the law, as all citizens do, and should not be denied legal rights and protections offered to other citizens. How to define and protect those rights, though, should be a matter for the state legislatures.

The view here is that the legislatures should be encouraged to provide those rights and protections by adopting laws that recognize civil unions. ...

This page firmly opposes a constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Were such an amendment to be adopted, it would render moot a process of debate and decision-making that the American public, through their legislatures, must be permitted to have in the years ahead. The U.S. Constitution is a precious document that sets out the rights of its citizens; it is designed to retain power in the hands of its citizens. It has not been and should not be used to block a public debate over how to define those rights and exercise that power.

Yet those who were outraged by Bush's announcement on Tuesday must remember this: The president wasn't spoiling for this fight. Until now he had avoided an endorsement of the campaign for a constitutional amendment on marriage. The events of recent weeks have forced the issue.

more
posted by Eve at 2:11 PM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home