It is funny, you know. The Left uses the Equal Protection Under The Law clause of the 14th Amendment for everything from Affirmative Action to Gay Marriage. But where it should be used most, in regards to the issue of whether or not a person lives or dies, fathers are treated as nothing more than a second-class citizen.
With the abolition of slavery, after the American Civil War it was necessary to submit legislation that guaranteed equal civil and legal rights to black citizens. In addition to granting citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States (specifically written with the newly freed slaves in mind), another clause sought to ensure the new citizens were treated fairly and equally. To achieve this, in the 14th Amendment is was written that "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The House Joint Resolution proposed the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution to the states on June 16, 1866. The Amendment was ratified on July 28, 1868, and became a part of the U.S. Constitution.
As well intentioned as it was, however, the 14th Amendment was unable to fully protect the rights of black citizens. However, the struggle did not stop there. The black community worked tirelessly to make the promise of the 14th Amendment a reality by petitioning and initiating court cases, and continually addressing Congress regarding their grievances. Even though the promise of the 14th Amendment did not materialize during the 19th century, they had begun a movement that carried into the 20th century, and eventually led to legal and societal advances in ensuring that all people were treated equally under the law.
The Equal Protection Clause was specifically written to protect the former slaves from being treated differently because of their color and history as a slave, but the language has been used appropriately, and inappropriately, many times, to the extent of a recent case where in Kansas, multiple lawsuits have surfaced arguing that the public school funding system discriminates against students in counties with smaller tax bases. Judges, in these cases, have actually resolved to order the wealthier school districts to share money with other districts. One might ask, "Was the intention of the Equal Protection Under The Law clause to redistribute the wealth in such a manner?"
One might argue the idea of a public school system that receives federal funding in addition to state funding, is unconstitutional in the first place. Therefore, the court decisions in Kansas are applying an unconstitutional ruling to an unconstitutional entity. That not withstanding, however, one wonders if even the argument that Equal Protection means redistributing wealth, which in its own right is hardly a constitutional idea, deserves to even be heard.
As for my statement regarding the constitutionality of the public school system, I am not saying to eliminate the public school system for its unconstitutional nature. Now that such an entity is in place, its gradual elimination must be accomplished through reform, and a step by step conversion strategy that would eventually move the public school system into something that more resembles the private schools, and one that is fully funded by the states, without any federal funding whatsoever.
Affirmative Action is another issue that claims its roots from the Equal Protection Under The Law Clause of the 14th Amendment. In fact, a case involving the University of Michigan has reared its head of late, making the claim that Detroit's Cass Technical High School was forced to discontinue its program that gave additional admission points to black and Latino students because of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, a ballot proposal voters adopted in November 2006 which added to the state Constitution an end to all "racial preference" and affirmative action-type programs in taxpayer funded institutions. The voters saw Affirmative Action as unfair racial preferences, while black students see the elimination of Affirmative Action as a violation of the Equal Protection clause.
I suppose it depends on what your definition of "equal" is. If your definition of equal is that folks who come from a past of obvious mistreatment both legally and societally deserve more opportunity than everyone else through methods like additional points for college because of their color, than the black students have a case. If equal to you means "the same in all ways, equally balanced, having the same rights or status without any preference afforded by law," then the Michigan voters win the big prize.
Marriage has even come under the ever changing interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause. Homosexuals have determined that their decision to practice sexually deviant behaviors gives them the rights afforded to heterosexual couples through the sanctity of marriage. The argument is that by not allowing same-sex marriages to be recognized by the government, therefore not affording all of the rights and privileges of a marital contract to same sex couples, the government is in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The reasoning is that not legalizing gay marriage is an apparent violation of the 14th Amendment because the current laws treat gays differently from heterosexuals without a rational basis for the disparate treatment.
The question then arises, is the government entitled to dictate the parameters of marriage, of which is clearly not a governmental function, in the first place? The federal government should not be dictating to anyone a single bit in regards to marriage. There is no passage in the U.S. Constitution that gives the federal government such jurisdiction.
"But," may argue those in favor of legalizing gay marriage, "disallowing gays to marry is a clear violation."
Gays have not been disallowed to marry. They can marry anyone they want. However, to achieve the legalities they desire, the path is different. There is nothing that stops them from going to a lawyer and drawing up paperwork that gives their partner all of the legal privileges of a spouse. And there are churches that will marry them, though the state will not recognize the marriage from a legal point of view. The solution to the legality part, once again, is visiting a lawyer.
Problem is, it is my opinion that marriage is an institution the government has no rights over, regardless of who is getting married, anyway. The sanctity of marriage is something that exists outside of government, and for government to change the definition of something they have no right to have authority over in the first place, in my opinion, is an overreach of government authority.
Imagine, if you will, that a football player that has done well in the realm of professional football decides he should have a contract with the New York Yankees. The Yankees deny him a contract because he is not a baseball player. The football player sues, claiming the Yankees have no right to deny him a contract because he plays a different sport, and that by denying him the contract they are in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Then the courts go to the baseball commissioner with a court order demanding that baseball changes the definition of the game so that the football player can receive a contract with the Yankees for playing a sport that has nothing to do with the definition of baseball for the last century and beyond.
Makes no sense. Should the government even have that kind of authority? Is it right for the government to force baseball to change the definition of the game? Should the government have any kind of say over the sports in the first place?
What makes less sense is that in all of these examples I have given you, the broader manner of the interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause is questionable. You can, if you try, recognize valid points in the arguments on both sides, and it takes a careful scrutinization of the cases to determine whether or not they fall within the auspices of the Equal Protection Clause.
Life, Liberty and Property are specifically mentioned in the 14th Amendment as being the things that should be protected under the Equal Protection Clause. Life, notice, was the first one listed. One's own life is the obvious indication present, though the lives of one's family would also be assumed. So, with all of the battles regarding the Equal Protection Clause as it relates to civil rights, college education, and marriage, why hasn't the argument been applied to a father's rights on the issue of abortion?
A child is created by an equal amount of genetic material from both the mother, and the father. Dad is as much of a parent to that child as is the mother. The only difference is that the nine months of pre-birth growth happens inside the womb of the mother. One could argue that the very act of carrying the child makes the biological mother more of the parent, but that argument falls flat in the case of where a Vermont court ordered a Christian child taken away from her biological mother and given to a lesbian ex-partner (why the court would do such a thing escapes me).
So if leftists are willing to take a child away from a Christian family and hand it over to a homosexual with the twisted thinking that the child would be better off in that household, then obviously the fact that the biological mother carried the child for nine months must not carry much weight after all in the minds of the liberal Democrats. That being the case, then why is it that the father of an unborn child has no say over the decision of abortion? Shouldn't the father, an equal parent from a genetic material standpoint, have as much say over whether the child lives or dies as does the mother?
Shouldn't fathers be able to use the Equal Protection Under The Law Clause of the 14th Amendment to defend their right to save the life of their baby? After all, if ever the 14th Amendment applied, you would think that in the case of protecting the life of an innocent child, that would be it.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Cuts might drive state's schools to court action one more time - The Hays Daily News
Three years later, the battle continues over affirmative action - Lansing City Pulse
Lesbian awarded custody of Christian's only child - World Net Daily
14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (1868) - Library of Congress/Our Documents
No comments:
Post a Comment