On Tuesday, February 24th, 2004, President George W. Bush openly stated his support and approval for a change to the United States Constitution. This amendment, if enacted, would change the foundational document of our country's beliefs. At best, it would codify "separate but equal" as an acceptable tenet of our country's judicial system. At worst, it would allow prejudice, ignorance, and the selective application of "Church" views to overrule "State" responsibilities.


Bush Speaks
President Bush says:

"America's a free society which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions. Our government should respect every person and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities."

Some agree that Bush is only protecting the institution of marriage from change, and that a separate kind of "civil union" should be acceptable to gays and lesbians. Some go further, arguing this is only an example of the government protecting religious freedom and expression, since marriage is a religious term and the definition of this word should be left to the "Church" to define, and not "activist judges" of the "State."

However, while marriage is a religious institution, it is a government institution as well. It is licensed by the State and dissolved by the State. The State and Federal governments grant special privileges to those who marry, and when those who marry petition the State to dissolve that union, the State intervenes to make decisions about everything from the management of debts and assets, to residence and parental contact for the children. The Church may not be involved at all. State endorsement of Black and White water fountains, hospitals, and sections of the bus were not equal. Neither is State endorsement of "marriages" for straight people (along with tax breaks, rights to inherit property, and a protected right to be involved in medical decisions), and "civil unions" for gay/lesbian people equal. This press for a constitutional amendment does not reflect a limited role of government, but an intrusive act that devalues gays and lesbians.


"Civil" Unions
"Civil Union"... think about the words, as it makes for a curious term. Of course, the word civil is meant to reflect that the recognition of this union is granted by the government itself. Ms. Manners, however, would define "civil" somewhat differently, as referring to the way people behave when they are "coldly polite." It is known that such people have strong feelings about each other, but these emotions are not overtly displayed. Such people can have mutual friends, and are able to interact in social settings without causing undue discomfort for their friends. Their friends could almost forget about these strong feelings. The term "civil union" is much the same. It allows gays and lesbians to have a relationship, so long as it is not overtly displayed, without upsetting the straight conservative people. It allows biased religious people to interact with gays and lesbians without undue discomfort, to almost forget about them. It allows politicians to say they don't support gay marriages but think States should be allowed to decide for themselves, and "hedge their bets" with voters.

It imposes an invisibility that is designed to deny, dismiss, and diminish the love, passion, sexual fulfillment, and deep emotional commitment there in gay and lesbian relationships.

Bush's comments are "a declaration of war on gay America," said Matt Foreman, the executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. War indeed. This is an invasive attack designed to deny to gays and lesbians the same basic rights accorded to straight people. It is an attack designed to dismiss the "realness" of the sanctity and deep commitment of gay and lesbian relationships. It is designed to diminish the value of gays and lesbians and their relationships, and redefine those relationships as less than a "real marriage."


The Stability of Society
Some argue that Bush is a religious man, and he allows the Bible to guide his beliefs for the good of society. Has he proposed a constitutional amendment to prevent divorce? Prevent eating cheeseburgers? Support men marrying their sister-in-law if their brother dies? these are all in the Bible that Bush reads too, just like the prohibition of homosexuality. Some say this is more serious. Is it?

"Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society."

How do committed and loving gays and lesbians being married threaten the "welfare of children and the stability of society" more than divorce, Las Vegas weddings by Elvis, and pre-marital and extra-marital sex? Is the stability of society more threatened by gays and lesbians getting married, or by increasing poverty, homelessness, and unemployment during his term as president? Is the stability of society more threatened by gays and lesbians getting married, or by pollution and environmental destruction? Is the stability of society more threatened by gays and lesbians getting married, or by alienating the free world to bomb another country looking for weapons of mass destruction we STILL haven't found? Is the stability of society more threatened by gays and lesbians getting married, or by Bush and his accomplishments?


The Fight Will Be Ugly
This is going to be an ugly fight, marked by the joy of newfound allies, and betrayal of former friends. It will no longer be acceptable to outwardly act as though gays and lesbians are equal, but deny them the same rights one enjoys. It will no longer be acceptable to say one supports the President as our leader, but deplores his actions. It will no longer be acceptable to say one votes republican because one believes in the basic "republican philosophy" except for that one.


For the Record...
Psychpage affirms the value of gays and lesbians as individual people and as couples, endorses equal rights for gays and lesbians, and holds that "separate but equal" still isn't equal.

Now is the time for men and women of honor and dignity to speak up!