I must say that I haven't before heard of anyone making such a farce of constitutionally protected rights.
The compromises you are asking for Pan are not compromises based on fair deliberation. This is not as simple as comparing to situations where no one can do something in a geographic area. This is not like special gun laws in certain cities, where no one can buy guns, or like areas with prohibition where no one can buy booze. This isn't even like the compromises you referred to with cruel and unusual punishment and capital punishment. It's not like it has been deemed okay to execute men of colour but not okay to execute white men or anything.
This is a "compromise" based on barring a minority group from their rights afforded them in the Constitution while permitting those not like them the very same rights.
This argument makes a complete farce of the idea of a constitution.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön
Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
|