Gay Marriage In the Constitution

I consider myself a conservative in spite of all the surveys I’ve taken that call me a centrist.

Maybe I am. The news now reports that President Bush is following the conservative wing of the Republican party by endorsing the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

Call me a centrist, but I’m against defining marriage as a union in other than one man-one woman terms. I believe God honors the one man-one woman union and other sexual relationships are a sin.

However, I don’t believe it’s the duty or responsibility or business of the federal government to involve itself in this issue, most especially on the constitutional level.

First, the Constitution should not contain “legislation.” The Constitution is a document of principle, not legislation. If the Congress wants to ban gay marriage, it should create a law banning it. Not a constitutional amendment to ban it.

Second, the federal government has no business dictating to the States what is properly in their jurisdiction. Forget the morality, forget the sin, States are given the authority by the Constitution to regulate this sort of stuff.

Third, this amendment will impede the probability that some non-sexually-involved-same-sex citizens who want the same priveleges as married couples, such as, the right to enforce a DNR order, the right to inherit wealth, the right to manage the health care, to name a few, may enjoy those priveleges.

Some may argue that homosexuality is destroying the family and our society. So should we constituionally ban all activity that razes the family or our society? Here’s what you’d have to ban, among others: Adultery; sex before marriage; the use of illicit drugs; murder; burglary; robbery; TV; TV commercials; movies; magazine ads for cars, perfume, and any other sell sex to sell a product; and the Internet. You can add the rest.

Federal government: Get out of the business of running peoples’ lives and back to the business of serving.