UWP Lecturers a question for the community

[Paul Beehler]

Hi everyone.

This list serve is, in part, designed to offer us a space for discussion of issues that affect our community, and I am curious about some ideas that have been bouncing around in my head.  As you are all aware, we all signed an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic.  I, in fact, felt a little like Superman when I put my pen to this hallowed oath.  Here are the thoughts that seem to be troubling me as of late, and I would love criticism and/or clarification regarding my thinking because I strive to be articulate and logical.

The Constitution was a document designed to establish a government, and one of the principal concerns of that document was individual rights.  Such can be argued because of the history surrounding the document as well as the language and laws that are set forth throughout the document.  I think this statement is my first premise:  the Constitution is designed to protect individuals' rights.

Proposition eight is designed to curtail individual rights by denying homosexuals the rights and protection offered through marriage (I read the proposition from the perspective of civil rights) -- rights that are extended to heterosexuals.  I would posit this statement as my second premise:  proposition eight is designed to erode individuals' rights (maybe by redefining the term "marriage" from two people who desire to be with each other to specifically an arrangement between a man and a woman -- I know there is a gross simplification here, but I will let it stand in the interest of time).

>From these premises, I come to the following conclusion:  Proposition eight is in direct opposition to the Constitution of the United States of America.  

The argument seems sound and valid to me, but I'm certain I must be missing something -- I refuse to believe this argument to be so simple. 

Of course, the final conclusion to my thoughts rests with that oath we all signed.  If this reasoning is sound and valid and if we are to defend the Constitution (I must admit that I do not recall the exact words of the oath, and these would certainly be helpful for any logical and accurate discussion that took place), are we then compelled to defend the Constitution?  I'm also not certain what defending the Constitution would entail, most especially in this case, because I don't remember that term being defined in the oath.

One other point of interest that I am certain you are all aware of:  proposition eight, between the two sides, has raised approximately sixty million dollars, and contributions have come from seventeen different countries (source:  KNX radio).  I mention this fact because the phrase "foreign and domestic" always seems to find its way back into my mind. 

I thought this discussion might be an interesting one for our community to consider, if it so chooses.  I think the issues are germane to our profession and our classes.

Your colleague,

Paul A.J. Beehler, Ph.D.
_________________________________________________________________
Want to read Hotmail messages in Outlook? The Wordsmiths show you how.
http://windowslive.com/connect/post/wedowindowslive.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!20EE04FBC541789!167.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_092008