Never in the history of this country has the Constitution been amended to limit the rights of US Citizens. Well, except once, when the 18th Amendment tried to circumscribe the "right" to drink liquor -- and was quickly overturned by the 21st.
Think about it. The first ten amendments to the Constitution are famously referred to as the Bill of Rights. They enumerate the freedom of religion, of press, the right to bear arms, the right from self-incrimination, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, to name a few you may have heard of. Heck, the Ninth is even for un-enumerated rights -- it's the "Hey, just because it ain't in here don't mean you cain't do it" amendment.
The Thirteenth ended slavery forever. The Fourteenth extended citizenship to all men regardless of color, and made them citizens of the state in which they resided. The Fifteenth granted all free men the right to vote (now including former slaves! See how this works?) The Nineteenth extended that right to vote to all women. The Twenty Fourth removed the poll tax (can you even imagine having to pay money to vote?!?) The Twenty Sixth extended the vote to 18-year-olds, since it was they who were doing most of the fighting and dying in Vietnam. Do you see where I'm going with this?
There is a pattern of liberation in those amendments. There is a time-driven flow of greater and greater freedom and enfranchisement written now into the fabric of our country's greatest document.
Most of the other amendments have to do with the proper function of government -- what to do if the President is incapacitated, how many terms a president can serve, when the term ends and begins, when Congress can get a pay raise that it votes for itself.
Only the Eighteenth and Twenty First stand as examples of what happens when we try to amend the fundamental document of this country to limit the actions and behavior of free people. We tried once to regulate drinking behavior in the Constitution, and it lasted a whole fourteen years before it was overwhelmingly repealed.
So what is my point? My point is that the current push to "define and protect marriage as a union between one man and one woman" is a bald-faced lie. This is the lie that some people want to write into the very fabric of our national constitution. It is an attempt to restrict the rights of certain citizens in this country -- gays and lesbians -- under the cloyingly false assertion that marriage is somehow in danger, and must be preserved as-is.
Do we really think that there is a limited supply of marriage? Do we, as a nation, believe that if your gay neighbors marry they have somehow used up your allotment, and now you cannot get married, or that your marriage -- your love for your husband or wife -- is somehow diminished?
So here is the personal take: I am an ordained minister. Admittedly, I got my ordination over the internet, but I am fully, legally, completely ordinated in the state of Washington to perform marriage ceremonies. Real ones. Ones that would require a divorce lawyer to sever. I can legally marry any man and woman who wish it. I cannot, let it be noted, marry any two men or two women to each other, even though, I would argue my personal religion specifically commands me to do so.
But here's the real kicker: even though the state trusts me enough to marry people -- to bind people into permanent union to one another -- I am not allowed to do so myself.
I cannot get married to my boyfriend.
Mind you, I haven't asked him -- we're nowhere near at that stage yet -- but if the day comes I cannot marry the man that I love. I can perform marriages -- I'm citizen enough to do that -- but I can't actually be in one.
Never has anything made me feel less like a U.S. citizen, and more like a second-class person in the country of my birth. That is exactly the opposite of what constitutional amendments have done, since the founders of this nation had the wisdom to include this mechanism to help make us more free and more enfranchised as our country -- and our understanding and tolerance for one another -- grew.
So don't be fooled. This proposed amendment is not about making people freer. It is about making some people less free through trickery. It warps the very notion of constitutional amendment. It is an election year ruse, and not only will we all lose if it passes, but history will judge us poorly for having allowed it to happen.