Zathras' Great Machine

Proposed Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage

So we see from this morning's paper that Bush has finally declared publicly that he wants a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

*sigh* Where do I start...?

Setting aside for the moment the fact that there's not a reason in the world that gays should be forbidden to marry, the constitutional issues involved here are worrisome. The thing is, the Constitution is meant to define the structure of the government and explain what powers it has and does not have. For example, Congress may authorize the minting of money (and is, in fact, the only body that may do so); it may not prevent people from practicing Judaism. The proposed amendment on gay marriage, though, has nothing to do with that -- it merely attempts to define a particular word in a particular way, which has nothing to do with delegation of governmental authority. That being the case, this proposed amendment is not appropriate for the Constitution, any more than a bread recipe would be.

Another major problem is that, contrary to what the right-wing fundies would have you believe, the First Amendment makes clear that the United States is a fundamentally secular nation. Defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman is a fundamentally religious concept. If you doubt this, look at how many religions don't practice it. For that matter, even Xianity itself, upon which this proposed amendment is allegedly based, has never been real big on "one man, one woman", as a quick scan of scripture -- or even a visit to Utah -- will tell you.

Additionally, the Constitution is meant to protect individual freedom. The document defines which powers Congress has, and it explicitly states that those are the only powers that Congress has (admittedly, no one pays any attention to the Tenth Amendment anymore, but theoretically, it's still in effect. Anyway). All other amendments thus far having to do with people's rights have been aimed at either expanding individual freedom, or protecting existing individual freedom. (The only exception to this was the Eighteenth Amendment, which was a gargantuan disaster from which the nation has never fully recovered). This amendment would restrict individual freedom, which is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution.

The fundies are pushing for this amendment because they know they have to have it to defeat gay marriage... all it takes is one state formally and legally recognizing gay marriage, and then it's only a matter of time -- not a very long time, either, I'd wager -- before the Supreme Court will have to rule on what that means with regard to the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution. It appears that that state is going to be Massachusetts, in just a few months (the SF marriages don't count, since those are still not recognized by California state law).

David Gerrold has written a number of excellent essays in his blog, explaining why gay marriage is inevitable and also explaining away some objections to it. Hop on over to have a look. And if you like what you read, please consider dropping a little money into his tip jar. He deserves it.

Posted by Zathras at February 25, 2004 09:55 AM