2004.02.26
The Marriage Amendment
I realize that many citizens are concerned about gay marriage and are opposed to it, but proposing a Constitutional Amendment is not a solution, just as it wasn’t the answer in 1919 with Prohibition, a word that applies equally well here.
President Bush is walking a mistaken path. Yesterday he proposed an Amendment to the United States Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Here is his speech.
I am against this Amendment for several reasons. First, the Constitution exists to preserve rights for individuals and limit government. Second, this Amendment seeks to regulate a social issue best left to the individual States. Third, the President is using this issue in an election year to create divisiveness which will overshadow other real political issues.
A look at Constitutional Amendments shows the ones which are successful grant or guarantee rights to the citizens of America. The single exception was Article 18, the Prohibition of Alcohol. This Amendment was such an unmitigated disaster that it had to be repealed 14 years later in Article 21. The prohibition sought to regulate a social institution (drinking alcohol) by taking away the right of any citizen to acquire, sell, or imbibe. The after effects were the growth of the Mafia and other organized criminal groups. The scope of this proposed ban on gay marriage would not have the same or similar ramifications, but it is, like Prohibition before it, a mistake; it takes away the rights of citizens.
Social issues have traditionally been left to the States to regulate, which they have effectively managed since before the founding of this country. Right or wrong, laws concerning marriage and/or civil union, sex and (to a lesser degree) reproduction are in the hands of the States where they should be. I don’t believe the Founders of the American Constitution meant for social issues to be regulated there, otherwise they would have codified social institutions just as the Taliban had in Afghanistan under Sharia, Islamic Law.
President Bush is up for reelection this year, and it has always been a tactic -rather successful at that- to divide the country with some hot issue that has no real relevance to politics the Executive Branch has any jurisdiction over. He is not supposed to propose Constitutional Amendments. It is Congress who decides whether an issue should go through the Amendment process. In this President Bush is just another lobbyist with undue influence. In turn President Bush is being influenced by religious conservatives who have often tried to make social issues into national politics where, as I’ve said, they do not belong. There is a reason the Constitiution delineates between Church and State and perhaps you can see the consequences of not doing this in the troubles facing the Middle East.
His speech proposing his Amendment is couched in language that further divides the country’s citizens. By calling a member of the judiciary an “activist judge” he is implying a judge that disagrees with him is part of some liberal conspiracy to undermine supposedly good American values. Never mind the equally “activist” judges he has been appointing while Congress is in recess. He is claiming to represent “the people” when in reality he is just representing a fraction, even if a large fraction. He also attempts to use logic where none exist. For example compare the following two quotes where the first is real and the second is slightly changed.
“Our government should respect every person, and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities.”
Our government should respect every person, and protect the institution of white people. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities.
So long as marriage is defined as only a subset -a man and a woman- then the second quote -white people- is just as valid according to the logic the President uses. It is exclusionary and in my opinion anti-American.
The Constitution should not be abused in the manner proposed. If an Amendment is proposed it should affect all citizens equally or not at all. Rights are given so that people do not have to suffer the tyranny of majorities or, for that matter, minorities - religious, ethnic, social, or economic. The President has no business proposing an Amendment. That is not his job. I realize that many citizens are concerned about gay marriage and are opposed to it, but proposing a Constitutional Amendment is not a solution, just as it wasn’t the answer in 1919 with Prohibition, a word that applies equally well here.
We do not have an Equal Rights Amendment, yet through legislation we have equal rights. We do not have a Right to Privacy Amendment, yet we have more privacy than most other freedom loving countries. I would rather see these become part of our American Constitution as they grant us fundamental general rights rather than some Marriage Amendment that takes rights away, even if I would not be directly affected.
You can follow any responses to this entry with a RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
