Same Sex Marriage: What Comes After Massachusetts and Bush?
Pure and simple, same sex marriage should fall within the lawful parameters defining marriage. The Puritanical roots of the American society are sprouting up in order to attempt to strangle an inexorable worldwide march toward more liberal social policy.
Consider President Bush’s statement from February 24, 2004. In it, he outlines why White House policy will favor keeping the traditional form of marriage. He says, “If we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America.” The big question accompanying this statement, however, is not what the White House is looking to do, but why they are looking to do it. Considering it is an election year, I would say Bush’s hand has been forced and while the administration is partly responsible for this bone-headed decision, “Bush has been under pressure from social conservatives within his political base to come out in favor of such an amendment, several versions of which are floating around Capitol Hill.” (CNN.) There is, however, a point at which the cause for the decision does not matter. It is what it is, a stunningly foolish step backwards towards limiting personal liberty.
A chief cause of this uproar (in addition to party pressure and election year politics) is, of course, the Massachusetts decision to legally uphold the laws establishing same sex marriage as equal in status to heterosexual marriage. (CNN.) This decision elicited the now-classic response from Bush, calling marriage “a sacred institution between a man and a woman.” (Statement.) The case in Massachusetts is, naturally, not over. A proposed ammendment to that state’s constitution would ban same sex marriage. (NPR.) It will be interesting to see where the issue is in 2006, the earliest that a state constitutional ammendment could be voted on.
It boils down (as all political issues do) to politicians doing what they think will keep them in office, what they think the people want. There are some extremists with wild agendas (on both sides of all issues), but the big question really is what the people want. While I believe a vote for a constitutional amendment opposing gay marriage would unfortunately not pass right now, polls do show that as the age of the sample population decreases, same sex marriage becomes more and more favored. (Pew Poll.) I would say, as the population ages, this trend will continue, and same sex marriages will become more and more mainstream.
So why ban it now? What is popular now is simply not right - what is popular down the road will be.