Amendment would diminish constitutional spirit

Frontiersman editorial board

The arguments on either side of the gay marriage issue are impassioned -- and in one context or another, valid. But in a democratic society based upon individual liberty, it's hard to reconcile any position that is based upon the denial of civil rights.

President George W. Bush has championed a Constitutional amendment that would effectively ban same-sex marriages. To our knowledge, it would be the first amendment that would deny a right to U.S. citizens, rather than grant one, effectively flying in the face of the spirit of the document. The first ten amendments, The Bill of Rights, would seem to set a tone for inclusion and the creation of a spirit of all-encompassing liberty, while this new amendment would set a precedent of exclusion and the establishment of a class system in which some people deserved more civil liberty than others.

Bush has commented that marriage is considered to be the union of a man and a woman in essentially every world religion, and that may well be true. However, the U.S. Constitution is not a religious text, nor can it be an effective instrument of liberty if it is guided by religious rather than legal doctrines.

Whether the United States grants or denies civil rights to gay people will not change the fact that there is a large gay population in our country -- a population of citizens who have the same claim to civil liberties as every other American. Jim Crow reduced the rights of African-Americans, but the policy did not change the fact that African-Americans were citizens of the United States. Jim Crow also diminished the protection of civil rights for all Americans by allowing the legal justification of categorical rights. No matter what our rationale, when we begin to deny rights to any person, we have diminished the rights of each person, and we jeopardize the future rights of all people.

Whether you personally support the notion of same-sex marriage is not at issue. The only question that must be answered is, "Would legal same-sex marriages diminish or infringe upon the rights of any individual?" If you cannot show that extending a right to one person would infringe upon the right of another, you cannot reasonably argue against the extension. You do not have to agree with every liberty extended to you, and you certainly are not required to exercise every liberty at your disposal. You simply cannot deny reasonable civil rights to anyone else.