Dangerous precedent that could be set by Marriage Discrimination Amendment

[kayell]

Weakening of First Amendment guaruntees of freedom of religion. Discuss?

It’s Raining Amendment
http://inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=641_0_3_0_C

The ugly clouds had gathered so long on the horizon that the first drop was a relief. Bush’s February 24 endorsement of a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage came after weeks of foul bellwethers, including coded gay-bashing in his clinker of a national address in January and a host of hostile signs flashed by surrogates. Even First Wife Laura got into the action, sounding like a drag-queen caricature of incensed propriety when she called same-sex unions “shocking.”

But the thunderclaps of repression against a ritual most Americans believe will become law in their lifetimes ring a bit hollow. Lost in the storm is the real risk to religious liberty that would come from embedding a particular religious bias about marriage in the nation’s founding document. As the 28th amendment, the Federal Marriage Amendment would trump the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom. This is one reason real conservatives are seeking cover from Bush’s jihad on the constitution. And it’s another way Bush and the GOP could get struck by the lightning they’ve labored to unleash.

Leave it to the savvy leaders of Americans United for Separation of Church and State to spot the true shocker—and the vicious irony—in the president’s proposal. “Far from protecting religion,” the group’s executive director the Rev. Barry Lynn wrote Congress, “the Federal Marriage Amendment would harm religion by … relegating to second-class status the members of religions that have chosen to recognize same-sex unions.”

An astute observer of the religious right wing, Lynn put his finger on how the very constituency of evangelicals Bush is wooing stand to lose from lessening the legal protections for minority faiths in America. Make no mistake: That’s exactly what the amendment would do. “Not only would the Amendment contravene the longstanding Establishment Clause principle that government should not endorse some religious perspectives over others. But it would do so through a change to the Constitution itself … rendering this preference even more egregious.”

more

[outinforce]

1. Using Lynn's Argument,

Using Lynn's argument and logic, couldn't someone just as easily argue that the ban against polygamy (and the requirement that Utah drop legal polygamy as a condition for entering the Union) relegates to second class status the members of relgiions that had (or have) chosen to recognize polygamous marriages?

[Festivito]

2. No longer allows man to mean man or woman.

Without the Equal Rights Amendment ERA for women to be treated as men, the Constitution has not yet had woman mentioned, once it is could that make all references to men as pertaining to men only?

Just thinking out loud. I don't think the Constitution mentions woman. But, I've not read it to find that word.