Bush Launches His Next Assault on Civil Rights

In his weekly address, President Bush initiated the anti-gay marriage part of his campaign. According to President Bush, a constitutional amendment is required to prohibit gay marriage in the United States.

Perhaps critical to Bush's argument is the following statement:

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.

Unfortunately, the good president has failed to understand a few things that have changed in the last 50-100 years. First of all, neither Canada nor the US can claim to be predominantly "Christian" nations - we aren't, and there have been far too many immigrants from other lands to allow such a claim to be valid. The laws that currently surround marriage in both countries are predicated on a particular judeo-christian notion of the idea of a family unit. The notion of separating church and state - which I believe is written into the US constitution at some level - means that applying religiously derived constructs to civil law is likely to encounter problems.

It is sad that President Bush seems to feel it is necessary to blame the issue on "judicial activism", when it has little to do with that, and much to do with the laws being questioned with respect to their foundations in Constitutional Law. The legal definition of marriage has nothing to do with its sanctification within a church. It defines the relationship that two individuals have with other legal entities (a bank for example, when a house is mortgaged; the government with respect to taxes)

When I look around the community I live in, I ask myself if two men (or women) getting married devalues the other marriages around them? I fail to see how it can. Some people will find it morally offensive, but the government isn't in the business of legislating morality (nor should it ever be). I'm not saying that society should be amoral, but rather, we need to ask if harm is being done. So far, outside of vague theological ramblings, I've never heard someone make a clear, coherent argument as to what harm a homosexual union causes.

Frankly, if two adults are in love with each other, and they choose to share their lives in a marriage, so be it. The notion of family has changed much in my lifetime alone:

- Single parent families are commonplace
- Divided families, where two divorced parents are sharing custody are not unusual
- Gay people have children, and rear them just fine.
- Mixed race marriages are not unusual (or shocking, as they once were)

All of these are forms of family, and as far as I can see, the outcome for the children involved has more to do with the parents providing a safe, loving environment than the structure of the family unit itself. So what's the big deal about legalizing that which already is taking place?

Considering the content, and application of the so-called Patriot Act, and its sibling dubbed Patriot II, I would be inclined to be very suspicious of Bush's motives in advocating an amendment to the constitution over something as trivial as two people of the same gender sharing their lives both legally and socially with each other.