NY Journal News

Gay marriage

(Original publication: July 13, 2004)

Borrowing a page from Albany, the Congress of the United States has yet to pass a budget for the next fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. There's talk that no agreement will come before the November election. All manner of negotiations have failed to end the logjam, mostly a fight between GOP conservatives and moderates over tax cuts and the deficit. The Washington lawmakers have not quit — the modus operandi of our state capital — but members seem resigned to a protracted embarrassment.

That, however, hasn't dissuaded members from wasting their valuable time and attention with distracting, election-year gamesmanship — in this case, the non-starter debate and scheduled vote over a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Shamelessly, President Bush is encouraging the chicanery, even orchestrating it, despite being busy himself with a whole host of chores he has been challenged to correct — namely untangling Iraq, fixing the health care/prescription drugs mess, securing better-paying jobs for families.

The Senate began debate Friday on a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife, effectively banning gay marriage. The president, who could have used his Saturday radio address to comment on any number of topics, including the prior day's report damning prewar intelligence-gathering in Iraq, instead urged the House and Senate to send the amendment to the states for ratification. "To defend marriage," Bush said, "our nation has no other choice."

The White House tack would be a winner if a required two-thirds of the Senate was as politically callow and cavalier as the president about enshrining bias and bigotry into the Constitution. On the contrary, nobody expects the measure to secure the support of even half of the Senate. Many lawmakers, including Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards, the presumptive Democratic ticket for president, oppose gay marriage but resist putting a ban in the Constitution. Through our history, the document has been the impetus for eradicating unequal treatment, not embracing it.

But this week's action really is no debate about so-called "activist judges," defending the institution of marriage, or whether gays and lesbians should be permitted the same legal rights and protections as others. The debate is really about political grandstanding, dividing Americans and distracting voters from the important business of the day — while denigrating the humanity and dignity of other worthy Americans in the process.

Lawmakers will be unable to resist the immediate distraction. Demagoguery is very often too potent an elixir. Nonetheless, they should quickly move on to education and jobs, health care and prescriptions, energy and housing, really any of the litany of matters that truly threaten the vitality of our families. That's where their defense is really needed.