Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve...

Another pending election, another half-hearted attempt at passing a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman (I steadfastly refuse to call it a ‘ban on gay marriage’ since I consider the term “gay marriage” to be presumptive of the notion that there somehow is an existing and underlying legitimacy to marriage between people of the same sex.) It’s funny how after two years go by – and numerous states pass their own constitutional amendments to protect traditional marriage – the vote tally from the US Senate is remarkably similar. In 2004, the measure “passed” 50-48; while this time around it “passed” 49-48. Unfortunately, the vote needed to have 60 ‘yeas’ to make it past a procedural hurdle and see the floor for a legitimate up or down vote. Obviously there still isn’t recognition of the will of the people, even by senators that represent states where marriage protection amendments have passed.

The timing is particularly specious – I frankly believe that President Bush and the Republican leadership are frantically searching for an issue to galvanize the conservative base as the mid-term primaries start to get rolling. They clearly have fallen into the proverbial wood chipper on the illegal immigration issue (at least where the White House and Senate are concerned), only to have compounded their misery through House Speaker Hastert’s (self)-righteous indignation regarding the FBI’s court-approved search of the office of Louisiana Congressman William Jefferson. I think they are deathly afraid of losing the Senate, and they are attempting to apply a political tourniquet to stop the bleeding.

But back to the issue of the day. As with most major political issues that contain a substantial moral component, I see a clear vein of hypocrisy from opponents of marriage protection. Specifically, some who oppose marriage protection will attempt to justify their position by claiming that amendment of the constitution is not necessary since states can handle it directly through laws or through state-level constitution amendments. This is an empty argument with no foundation in reality; in fact, to succeed, it requires a suspension of an understanding of how such issues are contested in our legal and judicial world.

The problem is that when activist federal judges get into the act, the will of the people be damned and the protection of ‘individual choice’ and allegiance to the secular humanist ethos of the left becomes paramount. Their agenda is more important than that of the collective will of a constituency of multiple millions of people, and at the end of the day “gay marriage” advocates know that they can circumvent the will of the people by getting their case heard by a judge with the “correct” perspective. To buy their argument, you have to be willing to believe that the proven history of leftist judicial activism won’t really play out on this issue – really, we mean it this time. Honest.

Never mind that this strategy can be (and has been) used in the exact opposite manner when we talk about another hot-button political issue with moral implications. That’s right, I’m talking about abortion. Cynically, the left claims that states should be allowed to decide whether “gay marriage” should be legal, but they refuse to budge on the concept that other states (and their citizens) should have the right to make a moral judgment and refuse to allow abortions. They claim Constitutional protection for the right to an abortion on-demand (as if Ben Franklin, et al, really considered that when they were crafting the foundation of our government and our basic rights), but they deny that marriage qualifies for similar protection.

Another problem (and glaring example of hypocrisy from the left) is that while an abortion is an isolated event, a marriage must somehow be recognized, denied or addressed wherever you go. Other than the emotional (and potentially physical) scarring associated with ending the life of an unborn child, the decision to have an abortion doesn’t follow you wherever you go – it has a defined endpoint. Not so with a “gay marriage”. If a gay couple decides to “wed” in Massachusetts, then move to Texas and ultimately decide to “divorce”, a substantial problem has been created with how to handle the dissolution. How do you divide the assets? What about healthcare benefits? How do you handle (heaven forbid) the situation with respect to children? (Don’t get me started on this last one – that’s for another day).

The left will claim hypocrisy from conservatives, saying that we support state’s rights in one case and federal control in others. In fact, our position is highly consistent and it has nothing to do with federalism vs. rights of the state – it is based on a foundation of beliefs and values that do not change and are not influenced by worldly cultural trends. We base our positions on concepts that are protective of life and of traditional families. We base our positions on the will of the people, not the “progressive” and morally ambiguous agenda of a handful of judges. We base our position on moral standards that have been established for several thousand years – standards which were passed down from the Creator of the Universe.