Why We Don't Need A Marriage Constitutional Amendment

Text of a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, from About.com:

"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."

1. It's discriminatory.
The amendment has less to do with protecting marriage than it has to do with preventing homosexuals from having equal rights with non-homosexuals. Let's call it what it is. It is a discriminatory amendment.

2. It's a recipe for persecution of not only homosexuals but other minorities as well. Has anyone seriously thought of transgendered people? They have it tough enough without being asked to choose a gender and restrict their marriage partner to someone of an opposite one, whether they actually are opposite or not.

3. It's not just a can of worms, it's several cans of worms.
In addition to the impossible position of transgendered people, there is the proof of gender issue that could, and undoubtedly would be a factor for some people. Do you really want to have to prove your gender? Who is going to be the judge of what it is?

This is not idle speculation, because gender is not as specific as the general public believe. Not only is there a one in two hundred chance that an infant will be born with "indeterminate genitalia" but gender is on a continuum, with many combinations and variations on the gender theme. A person can have male external genitalia, and internal female genitalia, never knowing of their existence. Chromosomally a person can be one gender, and have physical attributes of another gender. Which gender are they? How will it be determined? Who's going to do the checking?

Then there is the "what constitutes marriage" can of worms. You want to try to define marriage? I wrote a book about marriage, and decided I'd need to define it early on. Not as easy as you might think. Historically, marriage has been many different things. Even today, in the USA, marriage is more than one thing. For example, there is Common Law marriage. Live together for a certain number of years, in some States, and, in the eyes of the law you are married. Cohabitation can become marriage automatically, no license needed.

Under the proposed amendment, are gays who live together going to be arrested for illegal marriage after they have been together for the requisite number of years? Are same sex housemates who are not sexually active with each other going to have to prove they aren't in order to not be declared in a common law marriage and thus in violation of the law? How could they possibly prove such a thing?

Next can of worms: How would such an amendment affect divorce? If one cannot marry without proving one's gender, will one have to prove it to get a divorce if the marriage was entered into before the amendment? What else haven't the proponents thought of that could rise up to bite both hetero and homo couples in the behind?

4. It's a political move to toss a bone to religious conservative lobbyists.
You know, the ones who helped elect the President last time around. He's undoubtedly getting pressure from Republicans who want to get some help winning their congressional and senate seats in upcoming elections. Toss a bone to the religious right and they will get on board. Never mind that such an amendment will not be ratified, promoting it will bring in some religious conservative votes.

5. It's a diversionary tactic, to distract Americans from more important issues.
We are in an ill advised war in Iraq, one our President got us into on the basis of false information. He is becoming increasingly unpopular because of it and other lapses in judgment and effectiveness. Launching a nice little war is a tactic Presidents and dictators often stoop to when their administration is failing. But, that works only if it's a small war, of short duration, and if they win it. And, even then, it only works for a little while.

Since the war thing has already been done this time around, and it didn't work very well, something else must be used. Let's see, the prayer amendment is passe, and the flag amendment. But, there is still the marriage amendment possibility, let's try that.

6. It trivializes the Constitution.
We do not need to amend the Constitution over every issue that falls off an activist tree. It is a great document, created with a purpose, and making it an object of political maneuvering isn't in line with that purpose.

7. It's tacky.
I don't want some amendment to protect my marriage from gays taking it over. What are they going to do, export it to China? It's embarrassing that my political leaders and some of my fellow countrypersons think this is something to pursue.

8. It's foolish.
Why don't we find something else to waste energy and money on? Or better yet, maybe not waste it at all, but, instead invest in solving some real problems, improving health care, improving education, preparing for natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina.

9. It's arrogant.
Why should heterosexuals think they have an exclusive right to marriage? The whole idea that they should is based on the presuppositions that a desire to marry by homosexuals is sinful, and that whether they marry or not is the business of heterosexual people. It is perfectly all right for the heterosexuals who believe homosexuality is sinful to go right on believing it, and still allow homosexuals to decide for themselves whether they want to marry or not.

Isn't it ironic that those against gay marriage are perfectly willing to allow pedophiles, murderers, thieves, abusers, and previous bigamists to marry at will, but the most upright and law abiding, kind and gentle gay must be prevented from marrying.

10. It's worse than useless.
Not only can such an amendment not be ratified. Not only will it be a great waste of money to try to get it ratified, but it cannot be enforced. And, it would create victims if it were ratified.

We need a marriage amendment to the Constitution about as much we need another term in office with George Bush.

Pat Gundry
http://www.noodlefactory.net

Comments

[MT]

One of the things about the marriage amendment that strikes me as particularly hypocritical is that the same folks trying to get the amendment into the constitution (conservatives) claim that they want to collect and spend less tax dollars than their opponents. They claim that their Republican party platform stands for less government and therefore less taxes but in fact, they collect just as much in taxes as a liberal government would. The big difference? Liberals will redistribute the money to the needy and the conservatives will use it to implement laws that rob Americans of their liberties.