The recent defeat on issues relating to gay marriage and adoption (in California, Florida, Arkansas) has me thinking of Bush’s longtime backing for a Constitutional amendment to ban marriage for same-sex couples.
Bush & his supporters have repeatedly stated, “We need to preserve the sanctity of marriage.” These politicians, church leaders and proponents of family values, are fearful that what Bush refers to as the “most enduring” of all institutions in the civilized world will crumble if the invitation to the contract is extended to two men or two women.
U.S. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) led the call a few years ago to ban gay marriage by proposing an amendment to the Constitution: Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.
Perhaps if Rep. Musgrave is so concerned about safeguarding the inviolability of marriage, she should consider adding text that bans separation or divorce once a marriage ceremony takes place. Want to preserve the sanctity of marriage? Then enforce the vows that are exchanged in the majority of marriage ceremonies in the United States: they include “till death do us part” and a pledge to stay together “in sickness and in health.”
Most marriage ceremonies contain the symbolic exchange of rings. The wedding band dates back to ancient Rome; the round ring represents eternity. Historians tell us it was thought that a vein ran from the ring finger of the left hand directly to the heart. The ring symbolizes that the marriage should last forever.
The crude divorce statistic in this country stands at 50%. For every 2.2 million people that are married, 1.1 million undergo divorce. Divorce statistics are so high and so expected that they are no longer compiled in this country in any scientific manner. Yet, there is a multi-billion dollar wedding industry out there that offers ‘celebrity-for-a-day’ status to men and women who undertake what is supposed to be a lifelong commitment.
First they register, and then they hire the hall, book the caterer, the band, the costumes, the video and the all-important rings. For many couples, the wedding seems much more important than the marriage.
At a time when gays have entered mainstream society in the U.S.--thanks to the legacy of “Will & Grace”, openly gay Ellen, and using same-sex kisses between prime time television stars as a sweeps week agenda--it is wrong to completely silence the gay marriage debate with a Constitutional amendment (or state-by-state slaughter on the part of the Christian Right who fuels their hate-filled rants and chants with concern for “family values”).
According to Representative Musgrave, a man and a woman can enter into the sanctity of marriage--as did Britney Spears for 55 hours-- but same-sex couples that have been in a committed and loving relationship for years can’t consider the option.
Many gay couples that have adopted unwanted children from heterosexual unions exhibit a higher degree of family values than the biological parents. And now that act of compassion on the part of loving and stable gay partners is being taken away.
As for legal partnerships and agreements of civil unions? These documents have been challenged by family members in the event of a death, and they don’t speak to the issue of the legalities of inheriting pensions and other rights. Many gay people fear even these diminished marriage substitutes will be whittled away by Constitutional amendments.
Perhaps if same-sex marriage is not permitted in the United States, then gays who are denied rights should not have to pay the same percentage of taxes as other Americans. Doesn’t the Constitution also pledge “no taxation without representation?” And the Declaration of Independence certainly promises “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” as well as a separation between church and state.
The only criteria for marriage should be whether or not two consenting adults are committed to an enduring union.
