MARRIAGE IMPLIES OPPOSITE SEX COUPLES (8-2003)

Traditionally, if a man said he was going to get married, 
one could assume he meant to a woman, and vice versa. 
Although that assumption is still valid, there are gay and 
lesbian groups who are fighting to change the traditional 
definition of marriage.

Lawsuits have been filed in several states, including 
Indiana, that challenge the traditional definition of 
marriage so that it also includes same-sex marriages. Up 
until last month, polls showed that most Americans had no 
problem with same-sex marriages; sixty percent claimed they 
favored the concept.

But with the U.S. Supreme Court striking down a Texas 
sodomy law last month, many Americans are starting to think 
again about what marriage really means. A more recent poll 
indicates fewer than half of the respondents favor gay 
marriages.

The Republican Party and Pres. Bush have come out in favor 
of defining marriage more narrowly to mean a union only 
between couples who are not of the same gender.

Last week, the Republican Policy Committee released a paper 
urging the Senate to move toward amending the Constitution 
to prevent gay and lesbian couples from marrying. And Pres. 
Bush said his lawyers were looking at ways to codify 
marriage, which many assume is in preparation for throwing 
his support behind a new constitutional amendment.

The proposed amendment reads, "Marriage in the United 
States shall consist only of the union of a man and a 
woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any 
state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to 
require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof 
be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

It seems simple enough, but Democrats and homosexual groups 
are obviously against it. They say Bush is speaking out 
against gay marriage in order to cover up more important 
issues, such as terrorism.

But presidents, by virtue of the office they hold, are very 
good at multitasking. Just because the president is in 
favor of a constitutional amendment upholding traditional 
marriage doesn’t mean he is weak on terrorism. Nor does it 
mean he is using one issue to divert attention from 
another.

There has always been marriage. There have always been 
homosexuals. But not until very recently has there been any 
debate as to whether or not homosexual couples should be 
granted marital status.

If a gay or lesbian couple wants to live together and call 
themselves a family, fine. Whatever two consenting adults 
do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is none of the 
government’s business.

But marriage is a traditional institution that has always 
presumed the couple would be composed of two people of the 
opposite sex. It is the cornerstone of the family. It never 
needed to be defined constitutionally before, because there 
was no need for such a definition; everyone knew what 
marriage was.

Now that there seems to be a question about it, perhaps a 
constitutional amendment is called for to clear things up.