Amending Homophobia

This week the Senate votes whether to add a 28th amendment to the Constitution. Such amendment would read as such:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

That we have this amendment on the table is a deep and potent mark of shame on the progressive march of our country. But I will not spend this space stomping my morality-weighted foot. Rather, we will examine the arguments in favor of this amendment.

It is helpful to always ask what is the harm from which this amendment protects? How do Males' X and Y marriage harm the heterosexual union? The answer offered is "redefinition."

Here is Bush's radio address:

The union of a man and woman in marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, and the law can teach respect or disrespect for that institution. If our laws teach that marriage is the sacred commitment of a man and a woman, the basis of an orderly society, and the defining promise of a life, that strengthens the institution of marriage. If courts create their own arbitrary definition of marriage as a mere legal contract, and cut marriage off from its cultural, religious and natural roots, then the meaning of marriage is lost, and the institution is weakened. The Massachusetts court, for example, has called marriage "an evolving paradigm." That sends a message to the next generation that marriage has no enduring meaning, and that ages of moral teaching and human experience have nothing to teach us about this institution.

For ages, in every culture, human beings have understood that traditional marriage is critical to the well-being of families. And because families pass along values and shape character, traditional marriage is also critical to the health of society. Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them. And changing the definition of traditional marriage will undermine the family structure.

(emph. mine) The argument is cold, but it's premise is likely mostly sound. (My hunch, anyway, is that Bush is right in saying most societies that recognize a formal marriage relate that marriage quite centrally to family. I might be wrong- and you social scientists are welcome to step in here.) But does that make the argument (that gay marriage threatens marriage) sound? No. For many reasons.

If we are going to bolster marriage by searching for and making constitutional the traditional human-societal concepts of marriage, where do we stop? Shall we deem divorce unconstitutional? Shall we deem two working parents unconstitutional? Shall we deem the decision to not have kids unconstitutional? Shall we return to arranged marriages. Simply, what is the state doing in constitutionalizing the meaning of marriage?

Let us step back, and ask how did we get into this mess. Note this line: "If courts create their own arbitrary definition of marriage as a mere legal contract, and cut marriage off from its cultural, religious and natural roots, then the meaning of marriage is lost, and the institution is weakened."

Problematically, for Bush, marriage is already, for all the state's purposes, a legal contract. Religious institutions and local communities, unconnected to the state, make marriage anything beyond this. The state, perhaps, should not be involved in any way with marriage. That is the truer path, than the amendment, of protecting these specific religious and social traditions.

With marriage joined to the government's hip, the institution must take on the protections of government. The interpreters of our individual rights allocated by the government are the courts.

Bush is right that Congress has a place in creating or curtailing individual liberties, by way of constitutional amendment. He is wrong, though, in asserting we've reached that point as the last available option for government. The Supreme Court has not ruled on the matter. Only then would the amendment be the legislature's last resort.

The Democratics in opposition to the amendment are right- the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act is still law- and has not been overturned by the Court. If that happens- Bush's argument is on all fours. Until then, he's lying.

The proposed amendment's existence is a shame. But the conversations may be worthwhile. We should ask ourselves, rather than assume as Bush does, what does marriage mean? The answer will undoubtedly vary by community and religious belief. Those things should define marriage. Not the state. To the extent the state does so, it should never be to restrict a loving, committed union...but to embrace it.