|
Board Statement on the Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment
On February 24, 2004, President George W. Bush publicly endorsed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would codify discrimination against same sex couples. The amendment would bar these couples from the opportunity to form legally recognized marital relationships. GAPA opposes President Bush’s position for the following reasons:
1. Other than the institution of slavery, the U.S. Constitution has never in its history entrenched the denial of equal rights to any minority group. An anti-gay marriage amendment would be anathema to the highest constitutional principles upon which this nation is founded.
2. Marriage traditionally has been the purview of states’ rights. Even conservative commentators agree that the proper forum for deliberation on this issue is within the states, not the federal government.
3. An anti-gay marriage amendment would permanently relegate same-sex couples to the status of second class citizenship. Civil unions, even at the level of equal legal rights to marriage, sends a social message that same sex couples are unworthy of the rights, duties and privileges that marriage affords.
4. Extending marital status to committed and loving same-sex couples, many raising children in stable, nourishing environments, does not threaten the institution of marriage; it strengthens it. At a time when America struggles to provide the best environment for the raising of the next generation of Americans, we should be helping families unite under the institution of marriage rather than depriving them of the legal support necessary to ensure their flourishing.
5. The proposed amendment is a poor substitute for meaningful policies that can truly help to strengthen the institution of marriage and of families in this country. Families in America are struggling to get a decent education for their children and adequate affordable health care. This amendment will do nothing to alleviate these pressures.
6. A federal Constitutional amendment does not guarantee clarity in the law. To the contrary, it is likely to create discord and spawn endless federal court lawsuits challenging and interpreting the amendment.
7. The injection of this controversial issue during a presidential election year debases an important social issue and distorts the public debate just when calm and rational deliberation is most desperately needed. The timing of President Bush’s announcement is imprudent at best and politically opportunistic at worst.
|
