MARRIAGES SHOULDN'T BE GAY (12-2003)

Twenty years ago if you asked anyone off the street to define what marriage is, almost 100
percent of them would say something like, "It is the legal union of a man and woman as husband
and wife." That's the first definition of marriage in the dictionary, and most people would still
agree with it. But some of those in the gay community have been trying for years to redefine what
marriage is, legally and socially. 

Homosexuals have been living together as couples for as long as there has been marriage, albeit
mostly as a secretive arrangement. In more recent times, homosexuals have been much more
brazen about their living arrangements and lifestyle. So brazen, in fact, that gay pride groups are
pushing for a new legal definition of marriage. And their successes are mounting.

A couple of weeks ago, the highest court in the State of Massachusetts ruled that gay couples
have as much right to be married as heterosexual couples. The court ordered the state's
legislature to come up with a law to permit it.

Massachusetts follows Vermont and Hawaii in having to deal with the political hot potato of gay
marriage. It has reached the point where, now, some conservatives are even pushing for a
constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Thanks in part to the Massachusetts court order, which applies only to marriages performed in
that state, gay marriage may be the big political issue of the 2004 presidential campaign. 

In past elections, emotional issues such as abortion rights, gun control, and school prayer have
been used to define the campaigns of conservative candidates. Now, many conservatives are
elated with the Massachusetts decision because it hands them their top social issue for the
coming campaign.

The down side is that most of the other wedge issues have been used during economically stable
times, and when fewer people cared much about foreign policy. Polls indicate that, currently,
people care more about the health of their wallets and how the war in Iraq is going than about
whether or not homosexuals should be able to marry each other. Still, conservatives are hoping
the issue might sway some fence sitters to come down on the conservative side, since most
Americans still do not favor gay marriage.

President Bush has said he supports the sanctity of marriage between and a man and a woman.
But, he is not ready to openly support a constitutional amendment defining marriage, at least not
yet. Maybe he doesn't want to appear as a George Wallace camping out on the steps of an
Alabama schoolhouse to protest the admittance of blacks in the 1960s.

But he would have the support of most Americans. A Pew Research poll of registered voters
showed that nearly three-fourths of those who voted for Bush oppose the concept of gay
marriage. Among Democrats, nearly half oppose it. And when voters were asked if they would be
more likely or less likely to vote for a candidate who openly supports gay marriage, about half
said they would be less likely to vote for that candidate, while 39 percent of them said it would
make no difference. Only 10 percent said they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who
supports gay marriage.

What consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes is none of the government's
business. And if two people of the same sex want to live together under one roof as a couple,
they should have that right. They shouldn't even have to be clandestine about it.

But marriage is a millennia-old tradition. It has always implied the union between a man and a
woman for the purpose of sharing each others' lives and raising a family. Although gay couples
can and do raise families, it is by way of a non-traditional arrangement. Such an arrangement
should not be viewed by our legal system as a marriage. It is not.

Somewhere around half of all modern marriages end in divorce. That is far higher than the
historical average. If we change the legal definition of marriage to include gay couples, then why
not just go all out and embrace the likelihood of divorce before it happens by making marriage a
five-year contract with option to renew every two years thereafter?

What's the old saying, "In for a penny, in for a pound"? Or, perhaps, we should just leave
marriage alone and let gay couples do the contract thing.