A/N: Comments welcome!  This argument has just been buzzing around in my head since I watched Bush’s State of the Union Address.  The man did not make any sense on the marriage issue.

“With Illogic and Discrimination for All”

A lot has been said in the fictionpress essay section about gay rights and gay marriage, and I don’t think I can add much in response to those threads already in existence.  Here I am focusing on President Bush’s remarks in the State of the Union Address about gay marriage.  Here is his argument in favor of a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage:

“Activist judges…have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.”

       -- President Bush, 2004 State of the Union Address (source: )

Regardless of our views on the morality of the gay lifestyle and the theological interpretation of marriage, let us examine Bush’s logic in endorsing a Constitutional amendment barring gay marriage.  He claims that the “activist judges” in Massachusetts and elsewhere have been overstepping their bounds by “redefining marriage by court order.”  He argues that, America being a democracy, the people themselves must vote on whether or not to allow marriage between gay and lesbian couples.

On the surface, this seems a benign and democratic statement.  Beneath the surface, though, this line of reasoning goes against the political spirit our nation was founded upon.  Our nation is not truly a democracy – we are a democratic republic. 

The differences are striking.  In a true democracy, an example being ancient Athens, the voice of the majority is supreme in every matter.  There is a danger in this “mob rule” situation, which our founders sought to avoid.  Though most policy matters should be decided by majority rule, such a situation of pure democracy affords no protections to the minority.  If we were in a pure democracy, and a majority of people in the nation favored a law that made it illegal to disagree with President Bush’s policies, the law would pass.  However, under our present republican form of government, the dissenter’s right to free speech would win out over the majority’s wishes.

If you want further proof of what happens when the majority is allowed to repress the minority, look at the trial of Socrates.  He offended the majority with his teachings, and ended up with a death sentence.  Our nation, though based on some aspects of the ancient Greek system, is set up to protect the innocent from a fate like Socrates’.

This is the protection afforded to us by the Constitution.  The Constitution is a document that sets up certain boundaries, within which the majority can rule.  There are certain guarantees and rights that are protected by our Constitution, even if 99.9 of the country disagrees with them: free speech (first amendment), no cruel and unusual punishments (eighth amendment), equal protection under the laws (fourteenth amendment). 

It is this last guarantee, often called the “equal protection clause,” that would be violated by a ban on gay marriage.  Our nation and our Constitution are committed to the idea that true freedom means that every person has the rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as long as they do not trample on the rights of others.  President Bush relies on a flawed interpretation of our country’s governmental system when he appeals to the “people” (the majority of voters) to decide whether gay marriage should or should not be allowed.  Since gay couples who marry are not infringing upon the rights of others (as some Republicans seem to be suggesting), then the issue of whether or not to allow gay marriage is not a concern of the “people.”  It is rather a question of protecting the minority.

President Bush further urges the ratification of an amendment to the U. S. Constitution which would ban gay marriage.  The text of the marriage amendment also bars states from giving marriage benefits to same-sex couples.   According to , the amendment’s text runs like this:

 "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union between a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”

This is a misuse of the Constitution.  If ratified, this amendment will be the first time in over two hundred years of American history in which the Constitution has been used specifically to discriminate against a certain group.  This is the absolute opposite of the Constitution’s purpose. 

Bush’s arguments against gay marriage have little firm ground on which to stand.  They are based on a flawed understanding of the American system of government and advocate a grave misuse, even abuse, of our Constitution.  It is a very sad state of affairs when our highest elected official is willing to sanction discrimination against a large group of his own citizens, and especially when he urges us to use the Constitution, a document whose purpose is to ensure that an exclusionary proposal of this nature does not become law, to allow the discrimination to occur.  I hope our elected officials in the Congress and state legislatures understand the reason for the Constitution’s existence better than President Bush does, and that they will vote against this amendment.