The Constitution of the United States was deliberately designed so that it can be amended. The framers of the document clearly understood that they could not foresee every issue that might confront the infant nation as it matured. And, in fact, the Constitution has been amended 27 times since it took effect in 1789.

On the other hand, the authors of the Constitution deliberately made the amendment process onerous, clearly understanding what enormous mischief could be done to the nation if its organic law were to be changed as easily as adopting a common statute.

For the most part, this system has worked well and it has, in the long run, served to protect and expand the rights of American citizens. In fact, when it has directly addressed citizens' rights, it has tended to broaden them, to make them more inclusive -- by abolishing slavery; by extending civil rights to people of all color and to people of both genders; by providing for direct election of U.S. senators; by granting women the right to vote. The one ill-conceived amendment that restricted human rights -- the prohibition against the sale of alcoholic beverages -- was eventually recognized for the bad idea it was, and it was repealed.

The amendment now being contemplated with the endorsement of President Bush -- one that would define marriage as the union of one man and one woman -- would fly in the face of that historic pattern. If it were to be adopted, such an amendment would mark the first time the Constitution was used to limit civil rights, since the intention is not only to define marriage but to prohibit gay men and gay women from entering into marriage. That's an issue that strikes many people at a deeply emotional and even a deeply spiritual level, as does the issue of homosexuality itself. Nor are public attitudes on these matters fixed in stone -- the American view of homosexuality has changed considerably over time, and it is likely to change even more as more time goes by.

An issue like this, with its visceral impact, is not suitable stuff for the Constitution. The law of the land in this regard should be given more time to evolve through public discourse, the actions of state legislatures, and the deliberations of state and federal courts. The present confused and highly charged atmosphere surrounding the issue of gay marriage is not the kind of environment in which the Constitution should be amended.

Send mail to email@gaypasg.org with questions or comments about this web site.
Copyright © 1998 - 2008 Gay & Lesbian Political Action & Support Groups
Last modified: June 21, 2008 by Outstanding Web Stuff