|
And following up on GDs devil's advocate follow up on me,
If not requiring the franchise for women was technically correct until the 19th Amendment (as well as not requiring the franchise for Chinese citizens until the 15th) does the absence of a specific amendment guaranteeing the right of gays to the franchise mean that it is technically acceptable for Utah to pass a law denying them that privilege?
There are only three parameters limiting how states can restrict the right to vote that are explicitly stated in the constitution:
1. Can't deny them the right just because they're a woman.
2. Can't deny them the right just because of their color or race.
3. Can't set an age limit older than 18.
So not allowing Methodists in Oregon to vote, or civil engineers in Minnesota, or gays in Alabama does not run afoul of those explicit restrictions.
Where does my right to vote come from? Do I have a "right" to vote, or merely a privilege that the state of California has not yet decided to take away?
This is a real world situation. Texas decided all on its lonesome that it could deprive certain classes of the mentally handicapped and former felons of the franchise. On what basis the is the "right" to vote less of a right than the "right" to marry?
|