Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit discrimination on the basis of any sexual disorder or orientation which is defined by an attraction to persons of a particular age group.
Go online to WebMD (which, according to Wikipedia, is the leading health publisher in the U.S. and has been fully accredited for accuracy by the nonprofit health care organization URAC for 17 years running) and here is how they define pedophilia: “a sustained sexual orientation toward children, generally aged 13 or younger”.
Did you get that? Pedophilia is a sexual orientation – at least among medical professionals, anyway. I don’t know if it’s been defined that way legally yet.
Question: When (not if, but when) pedophilia and similar orientations (e.g., infantophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia) are classified as sexual orientations per law, what happens to all the laws currently on the books that say, “You can’t discriminate on account of sexual orientation”? Do they kick in automatically to prevent, say, the operator of a preschool or daycare from declining to hire a diagnosed pedophile as an employee? I’m not talking about actual sex offenders who have a criminal record by which employers could weed them out. I’m talking about pedophiles who have never assaulted a child and are horrified at the thought that they ever would – but they are sexually attracted to children nonetheless. Do we want nondiscrimination laws to protect them when it comes to certain child-related occupations or other positions? Do we want them teaching kindergarten, driving elementary school buses, being or assisting pediatricians, etc? There may be grounds for arguments on both sides, keeping in mind that I’m talking about people who have committed no criminal acts, but one thing is certain: This is a matter for the people and their elected officials to discuss and decide, not for judges to declare based (as they based their justifications for same-sex marriage) on an expansive reading of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. If the people want to say, “Pedophiles can’t serve as mall Santas,” they should be able to without a judge saying, “No, the Constitution prevents you from limiting pedophiles in that way.” (Likewise, if the people want to establish certain protections for pedophiles, such as nondiscrimination laws that apply only to pedophiles who are in non-child-related positions, such as IT or C-level corporate positions where encountering children has nothing to do with the job, the people should be able to discuss and enact such limited protections, too.) The impact of child sexual abuse is too great and too lasting to risk judges’ claiming authority to declare, “The Constitution won’t permit you to create such protective hedges for your children on this issue.” This Amendment will basically prevent judges from so declaring.
Note that although the Amendment is called the “Protection of Minors Amendment”, it offers protection at the other end of the age spectrum as well. There are such things as gerontophiles – i.e., people who are sexually attracted primarily to senior citizens. Should gerontophiles be allowed to work in nursing homes, assisted living facilities, and memory care units? Again, this is something for the people and their duly-elected officials to deliberate and decide, not for judges to declare.
The Cultural Bill Of Rights
–CBOR-7Y: The Seven Years Amendment
–CBOR-RF: The Religious Freedom Amendment
–CBOR-2A: The New Second Amendment
–CBOR-CP: The Capital Punishment Amendment
–CBOR-ED: The Eminent Domain Amendment
–CBOR-17: The Senate Restoration Amendment
–CBOR-SC: The Supreme Court Amendment
–CBOR-QV: The Qualified Voters Amendment
–CBOR-AR: The Anti-Reparations Amendment
–CBOR-GS: The Gender Standardization Amendment
–CBOR-MS: The Marriage Standardization Amendment
–CBOR-PM: The Protection of Minors Amendment