Skip to main content

View Diary: I rarely say this, but Maureen Dowd is a must-read! (179 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  And Scalia responded that it was 1868 (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    carolanne, JerryNA, davidincleveland, NYFM

    with the ratification of the 14th Amendment, which was intended to address the issue of race, but of course does nothing on the issue of sexual orientation.

    Scalia will argue to his dying day that for the Constitution to REQUIRE marriage equality will require explicit language to that affect,, and thus an Amendment.

    "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

    by teacherken on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 11:18:06 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks. (0+ / 0-)

      I hadn't read that - haven't read a lot of it, I admit. I should have known Scalia would have a ready come-back :)

      I suppose I was hoping it would silence him, if only for a moment, because when I read it, I was thinking "it became unconstitutional when there was a Supreme Court with some courage and vision." I didn't think about the Amendment business.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site