Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend

Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites (# of views)   1 comment
OpEdNews Op Eds

Equal Rights for All

By       Message Brent Budowsky     Permalink
      (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Funny 1  
View Ratings | Rate It Headlined to None 3/28/13

- Advertisement -
source The Hill

(Image by kapchurus)   Permission   Details   DMCA
- Advertisement -

by kapchurus

Legend has it that Ernest Hemingway was having dinner with friends and offered a bet that he could write a story of six words that would make people cry. His friends reportedly put their money on the table and Hemingway wrote down his story, which was:

"For sale, baby shoes, never worn."

Literary historians debate whether the Hemingway story is true, but in its spirit of simplicity, let me propose that the law of the land should be, simply:

- Advertisement -
"Not for sale, equal rights for all."

I would argue that "equal rights for all" is the law of the land today, despite the fact that the law as interpreted by the current Supreme Court majority does not yet agree.

The Defense of Marriage Act is probably, fortunately, to use a non-legal formulation, a dead duck. Good. The DOMA duck never should have existed in the first place.

Unfortunately, the fifth vote for the demise of DOMA might well be cast for the wrong reason -- i.e., the most powerful man in America, Associate Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, might well suggest that DOMA violates (ugh!) states' rights.

Right result, wrong reason. If State X were to legislate that a marriage between a straight Hispanic and a straight white would be illegal, or if State Y were to legislate that whites are permitted to vote but blacks are not, or if State Z were to legislate that slavery will be legalized, should States X, Y or Z have a constitutional right under states' rights doctrine to do these things? Of course not.

Why should gay American citizens be granted a secondary constitutional status that is both separate and unequal compared to straight American citizens? Of course they should not be. But they may be, because:

- Advertisement -
The most likely outcome of the California gay marriage case would effectively allow gay marriage to exist in California in a decision that would not impact other states. Would justices who vote for this one-state outcome do the same if State A outlawed marriages between straight Christians and Jews, or State B outlawed marriage between straight Hispanics and whites? Of course not. Should the Supreme Court hold that marriages between any straights are constitutionally protected but marriages between gays are not? Of course not. But it may.

And shouldn't we agree that the majority of Americans who are female have constitutionally equal rights to the minority of Americans who are male?

Shouldn't we agree that the Constitution as written guarantees equal rights for females, and if not, shouldn't we ratify the Equal Rights Amendment?

Let's compare pay discrimination against women with voting rights for Alabamans. In the most important pay discrimination case, five Supreme Court men decided that the women did not have standing to challenge pay discrimination against them. Is the legal rationale that the Supreme Court men thought the women faced no discrimination on pay, or that the women faced different kinds of discrimination, and therefore lack standing to challenge discrimination? This is constitutionally absurd.

How can Supreme Court justices who denied the women standing to challenge pay discrimination uphold standing for Alabamans attacking Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, when the Alabama county has such a bad voting rights record, according to most election analysts, that it would be covered by the Voting Rights Act no matter what formula of states would be covered? Where's the harm to the Alabama county, unless justices believe no Americans in any state should have voting rights protection?

In my view, the women should have been granted standing to combat pay discrimination, Alabama should not be granted standing to defend voting rights abuses, and Section 5 should be upheld.

Why don't we make this easy and agree that equal rights belong to all Americans, and then legislate and litigate accordingly? Fair enough?


- Advertisement -

Funny 1  
View Ratings | Rate It
Budowsky was an aide to former Sen. Lloyd Bentsen and Bill Alexander, then chief deputy majority whip of the House. He holds an LL.M. degree in international financial law from the London School of Economics. He can be read on The Hill's Pundits (more...)

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting
/* The Petition Site */
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Related Topic(s): ; , Add Tags
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

ISIS poses nuclear 9/11 threat

Barack Obama commands, Hillary Clinton soars, Mitt Romney insults

Five conservative Supreme Court men join Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, John Boehner and Ron Paul in the war against women

Why the right, the GOP and some Dems fear Elizabeth Warren and Occupy Wall Street

Romney cover-up of his tax returns, offshore tax shelters and outsourcing profits must end

Ryan's War on Women