Being Frank

In a case of homophobia making for strange bedfellows, President George W. Bush and Pope John Paul II have paired up in an attempt to thwart the possibility of gay marriages in the U.S., and around the world.

His Holiness has called upon Catholic politicians to reject the legalization of gay marriages. President Bush said he believes marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman, and he says his administration is looking for ways to codify that belief. It seems that if Massachusetts passes legislation to recognize gay marriages, the Bush administration will pursue a constitutional amendment to counter it, essentially trumping state law -- an interesting move for a Republican administration.

What is most striking here is that, normally, even when a pontiff and a president have agreed on a subject, they have historically come from different perspectives. The pope, as one might expect, approaches the world from a moral, or at least theological, point of view. The president, because he is sworn to uphold and defend our laws, normally takes a legal perspective. In this case, however, both men seem to be following their moral/theological compasses. His Holiness seems to believe legally-sanctioned homosexual unions would further degrade families everywhere, while the president argues that we've always defined marriage one way, so it simply must be right and proper.

The missing legal element in this argument is actually the most critical aspect in determining the proper course. While many of us hold strong opinions about morality, and what defines it, the success of our legal and social systems has largely been predicated upon the notion that morality is an individual issue, while the law is universal. The law in this case is that body of legislation that defines and protects our civil rights. Whether or not gay marriage is moral has little bearing upon the practical issues facing American citizens.

You may disagree with my opinion on this subject, and you may take solace in a degree of moral indignation in defense of morality, but it's important to consider some of the arguments being used to support the ban on gay marriage. Many of these arguments were also used to resist emancipation of slaves, women's suffrage, interracial marriage and the end of institutionalized segregation in the South. In each case, the country eventually moved toward the perceived liberalization of those social institutions.

Will any reasonable person now argue that any of those decisions were ill-conceived? History would seem to tell us that we're better off when we choose inclusion over exclusion. Where we allowed ourselves to justify exclusion -- to focus upon our few differences rather than our abundant commonalities -- we have suffered for it every time. When we have returned to our foundation and expanded civil rights to be more inclusive, we have gained every time.

President Bush tells us he is convinced that the only acceptable definition of marriage is the union of a man and a woman. He has vowed to defend what he calls the sanctity of marriage. The problem with applying moral stipulations to legal questions is that a line must be drawn somewhere. To strictly apply a Christian view of marriage to the question is impossible, since many Christian denominations can't even agree about some of the finer points. If a Catholic couple divorces, they can each marry again in a court of law, and the state will recognize the second marriage. Unless the first marriage has been annulled, however, the church will not recognize it. A second marriage is considered by the strictest Catholics to be immoral, as it is in essence a form of adultery. The problem with applying personal morality to legal questions is that one always must end up playing the role of hypocrite. Morality is, by definition, black and white, and the law, by necessity, has gray areas.

Our legal system was largely based upon the philosophy of John Locke. Locke basically tells us that we should each be able to enjoy a maximum amount of liberty up to the point at which conflict arises. In other words, I can step anywhere I want except on your toes. Morality fits into that picture as an individual factor more than anything else. I have to decide where my personal ideas fit within the parameters of the law. And, most importantly, the law is supposed to be designed to protect my individual rights, not infringe upon them. That means in a society guided by a fair legal system, we each should enjoy an equal amount of civil liberty, and we may each enjoy that liberty within the boundaries of our individual morality, but free from the moral oppression of others.

Frank Ameduri is the managing editor of the Frontiersman.