I heard on NPR this morning (yes, I do listen to public broadcasting -- I pay for it) several activists opposed to a same-sex marriage ban becoming a constitutional amendment. Their complaints were quite similar in language, that the Constitution is a document affirming individual liberty, and was not intended to curb individual rights or allow discrimination.

Interesting theory, but wrong. First, even a ninny knows the Constitution is larger than the Bill of Rights, which were in fact added as a compromise to please some who thought we needed to tell the new government what it could and could not do. For good or ill, those rights have been constantly constricted, expanded, and rethought for 200 years -- how else to explain both the eighteenth and twentieth amendments? In that spirit, a marriage amendment is perfectly consistent with constitutional history.

Second, the preamble states quite clearly the document's purposes, with none being of higher importance than the others, a mere list of several important purposes: establish a system of laws and courts to dispense justice, keep public order, prevent foreign invasion, "promote the general welfare" (quite vague, but certainly not individualistic -- general welfare, common good, public benefit almost always leads to a diminution of individual rights), and (consonant with all these other things) give us liberty. Put down the Thoreau and read the preamble. Individual liberty is but one of many of the Constitution's purposes, and it shares the stage with public order.

And on a totally unrelated topic, has anyone seen the television show Cash in the Attic that airs on BBC America? For the unbaptised, the premise is this: a family needs money for something (a trip, a family reunion, a new "luxury bedroom") and sells off certain pricey items from their home to raise the cash. On the face of it, this seems noncontroversial and resembles certain other shows on BBCA and PBS like Antiques Roadshow and Bargain Hunt. But after you watch it for a while, you begin to notice these people are often selling family heirlooms. Now if the family was being evicted, or pursued by the taxman, or needed to pay for emergency surgery, I could see selling off grandma's china. But "a luxury bedroom?" Last night, one family ransacked their home and offered several items at auction, including grandmother's pearl necklace given specially to the mother of the family and a lovely cane inscribed in two places: the first was a 1910 inscription saying the cane was given by Queen Alexandra to some important general, the second saying that the aforementioned grandmother was given it by some friend. This just does not seem right, selling off family treasures for a new mattress. Clearly these people have little sense of family history -- wouldn't you prize that necklace and pass it on, and perhaps display the lovely cane with royal lineage?