The Gay Marriage Amendment

The United States is faced with many challenges. It is embroiled in a difficult and expensive occupation of Iraq, which it invaded as a result of intelligence now known to be mistaken. World opinion ranks it only above rogue states like Iran, North Korea, and the Sudan. Gasoline prices are soaring, as is the Federal deficit. Its citizens struggle to balance concerns about possible terrorist attacks against concerns about diminishing civil liberties. This is a serious time with serious problems that require attention and vision to solve.

Thus it is no surprise that several Republican Senators and the Bush Administration have chosen to put their efforts into backing an amendment to the United States Constitution banning gay marriage.

The concept of legally recognized gay marriage seemed to be making progress several years ago with a decision in its favor in the New Hampshire Supreme Court and the issuance of marriage licenses to gay couples in San Francisco. However, the progress was largely an illusion. According to the New York Times, one state issues marriage licenses to gays, two others recognize civil unions, and three others have laws providing that gays can enjoy the rights generally granted by law to domestic partners. In contrast forty six states, including those who recognize civil unions, ban gay marriages by statute or by a provision in their state constitution. Two other states have no laws that touch upon the issue either way. Even the most paranoid opponent of gay marriages would have to admit that his side is winning the debate.

One might therefore ask why we need a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The answer, of course, is that the American people don’t, but that politicians who want to shamelessly pander to social conservatives do. This is particularly true since such an amendment has no realistic chance of being ratified. In Congress on Wednesday, a majority of Senators voted against limiting debate on the proposed amendment, thus effectively killing it for the year.

The choice of a Constitutional amendment to advance a ban on gay marriage is particularly cynical. The United States Constitution is one of the oldest and most successful plans of government used in the world today. It has only been amended twenty seven times since it was ratified in 1789. Ten of those amendments, the Bill of Rights, were all ratified in 1791. Three were ratified in the aftermath of the Civil War. The amendments generally expand, rather than reduce, individual rights. Very few amendments can be considered to be efforts at social engineering. Those that could include the amendments outlawing slavery, prohibiting the abridgment of voting rights because of race, granting women the right to vote, and lowering the voting age to eighteen. Only one amendment as patently silly as the proposed ban on gay marriage was ever ratified: the 18th Amendment instituting Prohibition in the United States. It was repealed fourteen years later, after having little lasting effect other than fueling the growth of organized crime by providing it with the perfect illicit product upon which to grow wealthy.

When it comes to proposing Constitutional amendments of little or no practical value other than for the purpose of pandering, the Republican Party seems to have taken the lead. The gay marriage amendment was sponsored by Republicans. Republicans have proposed amendments to facilitate prayer in public schools, amendments to ban flag burning, and amendments to make English the official language of the United States. Most of these proposed amendments have been targeted to win the support of social conservatives. Though I am not a social conservative, my assumption is that their average level of intelligence is exactly equal to that of the population as a whole. Therefore I must assume that many of them share my view of the basic frivolity of these proposals. Even those who don’t share my view have probably noticed that such proposals are never pushed hard enough to actually get anywhere, and are only trotted out when, for example, an administration is facing record lows in its approval ratings and can no longer improve them simply by yelling “Terrorism!” at the top of its lungs.

In a statement to the press on June 5, President Bush said, “This week, the Senate begins debate on the Marriage Protection Amendment, and I call on the Congress to pass this amendment, send it to the states for ratification so we can take this issue out of the hands of over-reaching judges and put it back where it belongs -- in the hands of the American people.” It would have been more accurate if he said that the proposed amendment puts the issue back into the hands of cynical and opportunistic politicians who have insufficient respect for the Constitution.