No One Under 35 Can Run For President
In all the talk about Amendment One, I've heard weak arguments on both sides of the Yes/No argument.
The one on the "Vote NO" side that has me about to pull out my hair is the argument that the Constitution (presumably at both the State and the Federal level) exists to protect rights, and that writing an amendment against gay marriage goes against the spirit and purpose of "The Constitution".
While we do love our Bill of Rights and enjoy stirring poems toward the hallowedness of these sacred pieces of paper, the fact of the matter is that the Constitutions at both State and Federal levels are merely documents of legal framework. Yes, everyone has snippets of constitutions memorised and inscribed upon their hearts like secular Bible verses. But if you ever read through the blasted things you'd realise there's a lot of dry tinder about procedure and guidelines. Take for instance the bit about having to be born in America and at least 35 before running for president. In the most basic sense I suppose it can be said to discriminate against foreign-born and naturalised citizens as well as snooty up and comers who are under 35. Yet it's a procedural guideline. That's what these documents ARE all about. To pretend otherwise is to betray a lack of understanding about the nature of constitutional law.
As I've said, there are a great many good arguments on both sides of the fence, and there are weak ones as well. I don't think "Protect Marriage" is a good argument for Voting Yes On One, even though that's what all the signs with happy families want you to believe. Likewise, I think that "writing bigotry into the constitution" is a poor argument for voting no, and I'll be happy to see it go away.