Seeking political advantage, President Bush said he would support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, a subject he once deemed a states' issue.
Published February 26, 2004
Our self-proclaimed "war president" wasn't concentrating on Iraq or the war on terrorism Tuesday. Instead, he was trying to divert the country's attention from such serious issues by launching a pre-emptive attack in the culture wars.
In announcing that he will support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, President Bush turned his back on the more responsible position he (and Vice President Dick Cheney) had espoused previously. In the process, he demeaned his office, cheapened this year's political debate and invited a dangerous defacement of the Constitution.
In volunteering for this battle, the president was proposing to repel a threat that does not exist. Despite his warning that "activist judges and local officials" are engaged in "an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage," the system already was working as intended. In Massachusetts, the governor and Legislature are considering laws to nullify a state Supreme Court ruling that orders the state to begin granting marriage licenses to gay couples on May 17. In California, the governor and attorney general are moving to overrule city officials in San Francisco who have issued thousands of marriage licenses there. Most other state governments have proceeded less contentiously in addressing the issue of gay unions as they see fit. Until now, the president and other national Republican leaders have espoused the principle of states' rights on this and other issues. What - other than political expediency in the midst of the president's difficult re-election campaign - has changed?
Polls find that a majority of Americans are opposed to gay marriage, but they also show that public opinion is moving gradually toward greater acceptance of gay families in general and gay marriage in particular. In the national debate over this issue, many Americans can't seem to get past the word "marriage." They would prefer to see gay couples join in civil unions that would give them all of the legal rights and benefits of marriage. Others are opposed to any legal recognition of same-sex relationships but believe gays and lesbians should have the right to live their lives without the threat of criminal prosecution or violence.
Our Constitution is too precious to be disfigured as part of a political strategy, or to be used to open a new front in the culture wars. The Constitution has rarely been amended in the more than two centuries since it was written, and when it has, the purpose was to expand its guarantees of freedom and equality to groups - such as African-Americans and women - who were denied full citizenship.
President Bush would amend it to do just the opposite - to make discrimination against Americans on the basis of sexual orientation the law of the land. What kind of president would debase the Constitution for political advantage in an election year?
