I sent a letter to my local newspaper this morning, and it pretty much sums up my views on it. I should also note that while I think Bush is a no-good son of a bitch for taking this route, I'm consciously taking a more conciliatory tone in order to lobby any fence-sitters in the reading audience. I've also left out my thoughts on a compromise that explicitly parses the distinction between marriage as a legal institution and marriage as a religious institution, which I'm still cooking and hope to write about in more detail sometime in the next few days. Anyway, here's my letter, in extended copy.
To be continued...
I was doubly dismayed to see President Bush call for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in the U.S. Not only do I think that his proposal will prove to be gravely divisive, but it seems silly to spend time and energy on the issue when more important matters beckon - the rough state of the American job market, skyrocketing energy prices, the millions of American who have no health coverage.
I don't want to tell people how to feel about the issue. Many people have philosophical or religious reasons for being uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage, and I respect that. But I do think we should draw the line at allowing these predjudices to be enshrined in the law, when there are very real effects that flesh and blood people must live with as a result. I'm not above harboring predjudices and dislikes of my own, nor am I above forming opinions about how others choose to live their lives. But as an American, I must realize that I live in a society where people are free to live as they choose, within certain limits. The right to swing my fist ends where another person's nose begins. My fellow citizens, this constitutional amendment would swing the government's fist into the nose of every gay American.
In calling for the amendment, Bush stated that "a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization." Fine, but marriage is just like any other institution in that it was devised by humans, and has a meaning that can be modified by humans. Slavery, child labor, and the subjugation of women are all human institutions that extend back several millenia. Yet society's view of each has changed radically just within the past century. Venerability alone is not a compelling argument supporting a resistance to cultural change.
Bush claims that he wants to defend marriage, but it isn't exactly clear how excluding committed couples of the same sex from entering into marriage accomplishes this. Indeed, I believe that the President has failed to demonstrate that the institution of marriage is under attack at all. For years, some have complained about the perception that the "gay lifestyle" was one of reckless promiscuity. Now, committed gay couples have cast any notion of that lifestyle aside for the desire to publicly and proudly declare their desire to enter into a familial bond with their life partner. In doing so, they are conspicuously endorsing the institution of marriage, not attacking it. Extending marriage rights to these admittedly non-traditional couples expands and strengthens the institution of marriage. What could possibly be more pro-family?
