Contempt for the majority of Americans
Customer Rating: 
The author, a Yale Law School professor, expresses his contempt for the majority of American citizens by arguing that the courts have the power to "amend" the U.S. Constitution by interpreting its broad language to include the freedom of homosexuals to commit sodomy and other crimes against nature, and the right of homosexual couples to the same benefits as married heterosexual couples. He does not cite any constitutional authority to support his argument usurps from the people and their elected representatives the sole authority under Art. 5 to amend the constitution.
Art. 5 of the constitution provides that: "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; * * * ".
By ignoring the plain meaning of Art. 5 and 200 years of constitutional jurisprudence, the author expresses his contempt for the majority of Americans. The unarticulated major premise of his argument is the majority of American citizens are too ignorant or insensitive to govern themselves, and that he and a few judges, like the Guardians in Plato's Republic, know what is best for us.
The truth is that if homosexuals can convince the majority of citizens that the constitution should protect their asserted freedoms and rights, the majority will amend the constitution to do so. American history proves that we are a just, tolerant, and decent people. But the burden is on homosexuals to persuade the majority of the merits of their claims, not vice versa. A "living constitution" means that the majority of the people, not a few judges, decide how and when to amend the constitution.
