Mr. President: Keep Your Oath!

This is a political post. It is about US politics. It is inspired by the thread now running in Rocky's blog, and by President Bush's speech yesterday. If that's not what you're looking for at the moment, please look elsewhere.

Marriage is what brings us together today. It is also dividing us. It is dviding us so much, that President Bush has proposed a Constitutional Amendment.

Whenever it is proposed that we amend our US Constitution it must be considered a matter of utmost seriousness. We have, after all, only done it 17 times after the original 10 of the Bill of Rights that were ratified at the same time as the seven original Articles. That's just once every 12 to 13 years, on average, since ratification in 1788. Changing the Constitution is the most difficult of all the processes of our system of government, and this is deliberate. The Constitution favors preserving itself. This intention is made crystal clear in the oath sworn by George W. Bush, and every one of his predecessors in the Office of President.

"I, George W. Bush, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Mr. President: I hold you to your oath under Article II Section 1. You swore to protect the Constitution. You now propose that it is so important to protect heterosexual marriage that the Constitution must be changed. It is more important to preserve heterosexual marriage than it is to preserve the Constitution? You took an oath on this, Mr. President, so the highest standard of proof must apply here!

Mr. President: what rights are you intending to abridge? The right to love? No, that one isn't in the Constitution. It is a right of Natural Law. You can not abridge it. The right to free association guaranteed by Amendment I? The right to create contracts that must be honored by the States guaranteed by Article I, Section 10, reinforced under the theory of liberty of contract found in Amendment XIV? The right to call a particular arrangement by the name "Marriage", which falls under the right of expression also protected by Amendment I? The right of equal protection under law guaranteed by Amendment XIV Section 1?

Mr President: how is it not an establishment of religion and denial of free exercise of religion (there's that Amendment I again!) to posit the civil definition of marriage must be the same as the that of the majority churches?

Mr. President, as you are well aware, the Constitution must not be meddled with lightly. The standards must be the highest we strive to meet in all of our law. Mr. President, What is the clear and present danger to our society that justtifies any of this? Clear and present danger is a difficult standard to meet, but it's a good one. It's the minimum standard that you must meet to change the Constitution to abridge rights of citizens.

It is not enough, Mr. President, that you believe that homosexual marriage threatens the institution of the family and is a danger to children. It is not enough, even, if the majority believes so. There must be irrefutable, beyond a reason of a doubt proof, Mr. President. The burden is on the accuser, Mr. President. Where is the proof of clear and present danger? Not the presumed danger, Mr. President. Not the danger that might come in the future. Clear. Present. Irrefutable. Where?

And how is it, Mr. President, that you justify diluting the reserved powers of the individual states under Amendment X? The full faith and credit clause in Article IV, Section 1 is crucial to holding the Union together. It must not be treated as a danger in and of itself, or as a contributor to a danger. The standard for amending the Constitution to abridge States rights in order to nullify full faith and credit must be extraordinarily high. Clear and present danger to the Union itself must be the standard. Again, Mr. President, I ask where is the clear and present danger?

Mr. President, the Constitution has only been amended to deny individual rights once in our history. That was Amendment XVIII... Prohibition. Repealed by Amendment XXI. A dismal failure as law, and a dismal failure for society. Amdending the Constitution to ban gay marriage will take us down that same ill-considered road.

Mr. President, you swore an oath to preserve, protect and defend. And what is it that you swore to defend? Look to the preamble.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

To secure the Blessings of Liberty, Mr. President. To ourselves and our Posterity. That's what you swore an oath to preserve, protect and defend. Ourselves and our Posterity doesn't mean just the straight Judeo-Christain believers in the the primacy of heterosexual marriage, Mr. President. Our Posterity means all of us. Secure the Blessings of Liberty for all, Mr. President. That is your oath, Mr. President. For all.