The constitution of the United States of America can arguably be regarded as one of the greatest documents ever produced by mankind. Besides being the bedrock upon which this country was built and continues to function, it also has served as a model by which other countries have formed democratic governments as well as a guideline by which they wrote their own constitutions.
When it was written, the authors hoped to create the foundation for a government that could withstand the tests of time and interpretation. With passion, intelligence, and forethought, these men meticulously pondered and heatedly debated the exact phrasing of the constitution, a long and exhausting task. What finally emerged in 1791 was a very solid document by which human beings proved their ability to govern themselves. The proof of its stability stands in the fact that 213 years later, it remains the cornerstone of our union.
Recognizing the potential need for changes and adaptations, one of the articles of the constitution deals solely with amendments; laying out the process by which they are ratified, and stating that once ratified, they become, in effect, a part of the constitution as a whole.
Needless to say, any potential amendment to the constitution is not an issue to be taken lightly. These additions affect the delicate balance of our governing structure, and of the nation itself. In the past thirty years, while a few have been proposed, only one amendment has been ratified (the twenty-seventh amendment, concerning the compensation of members of congress).
Now President Bush is calling on congress and the country to amend the constitution once again, this time to define the word 'marriage.' This, I strongly feel, is a serious misuse of this function of the document, not to mention an abuse of executive power.
Should the President get his wish and have a constitutional amendment passed which will define the word 'marriage' as the union of one man and one woman; this will undermine the integrity of the constitution. Meddling around with the content of this document to resolve this debate is frivolous, an overstepping of bounds, and only works to whittle away at the strength upon which this country was founded and the binding by which it is still held together.
Not to make light of this issue, it is rightfully one which people on both sides of the fence feel very strongly about. There are very valid arguments on either side. But by choosing to focus on this matter now, the President is side stepping some extremely pressing topics; such as the economy, employment, our continued controversial presence in the Middle East. It is an attempt to distract attention away from these very imminent matters, and by trying to manipulate the wording of the most important text of our civilization only trivializes the importance and impact which the constitution holds. It would be like rebuilding the entire city I live in to match my new pair of shoes.
The strongest argument for the opposition of gay marriage is the religious belief that it is immoral and jeopardizes the sanctity of this institution; somehow ignoring such damaging issues as the ever increasing divorce rate, and amount of spousal abuse and adultery that already occurs within the confines of this so-called sacred union. Written right into this beautifully worded constitution, however, is the separation of church and state. The President cannot call for an amendment banning gay marriage solely on religious grounds, so his only recourse, legally, is to quibble over the semantics.
When you look at the existing amendments you see that they deal with very serious and impacting issues; guaranteeing to women, and all citizens eighteen years of age the right to vote, establishing a limit to the number of terms a President can serve, the right to free speech and to bear arms, to name just a few. Never has the constitution been used for something so trivial and petty as dictating what a certain word means.
The definition of words is a matter for the dictionary, not the American Constitution. Regardless of which side of the argument you are on; opposed to or in favor of gay marriage; anyone who recognizes what the constitution is and what it stands for must agree that this is not the place to take up this fight. Unless, of course, the W. which represents our President’s middle name actually stands for Webster's.
