Thursday, Feb. 26, 2004 | 8:16 a.m.
WE SHOULD amend the way we practice our democracy.
Why is it that whenever people in this country don't get their way, or don't get their way easily, they start a movement to amend the Constitution of the United States? And why is it that the politicians, ever eager to jump on a popular bandwagon for some short-term political boost, are at the lead?
Our Constitution is almost 220 years old. It has survived world wars. It has survived civil wars. It has survived Supreme Court decisions that one year interpret its meaning to say black, and the very next year reverses course in favor of white. It is a document that has proved its resilience over the centuries and, despite the occasional mass amendment hysteria that has gripped America from time to time, continues to provide the blueprint for the most perfect union on the face of the Earth.
I mention this amendment process because there are currently two such efforts gaining some traction that I don't believe should be enshrined in the same document that embodies the Bill of Rights, the 14th Amendment and the right of women to vote.
In short, there are some real important amendments to the Constitution that have made America an ever-stronger and an ever-better nation. Ensuring equal protection for all Americans is one of them. There have also been some bad ideas that, fortunately, got fixed but not before they did their best to damage this country. Prohibition immediately comes to mind.
The amendment that will probably get the biggest play is the one President George W. Bush said he would support, making sure that the word marriage will always mean a union between a man and a woman. He will be on the popular side of that argument and it is one that, if he can get some momentum going soon, will help his foundering re-election bid.
I am not opposed to defining the word marriage as the union between a man and a woman. I have celebrated that state for the past 33 years and see no reason to change the parameters. At the same time, though, I can't get too exercised about the idea of conferring marital-like legal rights upon homosexuals who want to make such a commitment to their partners.
The solution to the problem, whatever it may be and however difficult it may be for those knee-deep in the emotional argument, is not worthy of a constitutional amendment. All the straight community needs to do is recognize that people who care for one another in non-traditional ways are still worthy of similar legal rights as those of us who are conferred such rights by marriage.
And all the gay community needs to do is find another word. Marriage is a red flag to not only the Bible-Belters but also to most normal folks who believe in their traditions, and neither one of those groups takes kindly to some other group coming in and messing with them.
So, if picking another word for the legally binding, rights-conferring status that gay couples wish to attain will prevent a constitutional amendment crisis, and if recognizing that all of God's children deserve not only His love but also mortal man's respect as fellow human beings under the law will do the same thing from the other side of the argument, then both sides must understand that there is a solution short of messing around with our Constitution.
At least the other attempt to change the Constitution has the color of rationality, even though I can't believe someone like Sen. Orrin Hatch from Utah actually believes what he is proposing.
Sen. Hatch wants the people of this country to amend the Constitution so that a citizen who has lived in this country for 20 years would be eligible to be the president of the United States. Right now, the Constitution provides that only natural-born citizens of this country can be president. It is a provision that this Republic has lived with and been served well by since the beginning of our country.
So why change things now? Well, Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has just become governor of California, was not born here so he can never be president. If the Constitution is amended, he could run. By the same token, any sleeper agent from al-Qaida, who has been sent here in the past few years to become a mole in the middle of American society, can bide his time and when the 20 years is up, be called to service by running for the highest office in the land.
I understand that Sen. Hatch may be trying to make a statement about the importance of immigrants to this country and the contributions they make. But I also know that we have had immigration since the beginning and no one has complained. In fact, the ability of the sons and daughters of immigrants to run for the presidency is part of the American dream embraced by those who have come here for a better life.
I think we are all better served if the staus quo remains. That the children born in the United States to immigrant parents can be president of this great country should be reward enough for those families as well as provide the rest of the country sufficient time to avoid the grave dangers inherent in sleeper agents that still live among us.
Amending the Constitution should always be serious business. Let's save the effort for something that really is serious.
archive
