Originally Posted by eeeeeeeli
Right, that's why I included the subsequent interpretations. I think a fair case can be made that there are principles in the constitution from which logically follow things like opposition to slavery, women voting, and yes, gay rights - even if they weren't spelled out at the time.
And I'm not saying people don't have a right to think anything. I'm just saying they are wrong to think that way (their thoughts are based on flawed cognition). Just like it is wrong to think that 2 +2 = 5.
Not to be too picky picky but the they tried to pass an equal rights ammendment and it failed. I'm pretty sure that it was specifically targeted to women. I wasn't too awfully political at the time but I think one of the arguments was that rights are extended to all persons via the constitution and there is no need to create an ammendment. Another bit was that if no discrimination was allowed in the case of women then they could be compelled to be drafted and serve on the battlefield. That's all I've got.