Editorial
Wasted time on marriage ban

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive Most read articles Most e-mailed articles

Everybody knows senators sponsoring the proposal do not have the 67 votes required to adopt the amendment, so the vote is more about grandstanding than getting legislation approved.

Most Americans do not support gay marriage, although attitudes slowly are changing. Younger people are more tolerant than middle-aged or older people.

But many folks uncomfortable with changing an institution that has endured for centuries are more troubled by the use of the Constitution to limit rights. Appropriately so.

This page supports gay marriage as a matter of equality and fairness. Refusing to allow gay couples to tie the knot treats them as second-class citizens. Gay partners sometimes are left out of participation in health decisions, parental rights and decision-making for funeral arrangements.

Last winter, when President Bush backed a constitutional ban on gay marriage, he hoped to energize millions of social conservative voters who sat out the 2000 election.

This week's vote is more of the same, another way to play to social conservatives.

Bringing a vote on gay marriage also highlights the heavily nuanced position of likely Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry. He voted against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman. He opposes gay marriage while favoring civil unions for gay couples.

Most important, though, Kerry opposes the constitutional ban, which puts him in sync with Americans who believe marriage is none of the federal government's business. It is not. The Constitution should not be used to define marriage or deny rights. Rules about marriage are best left to the states.

With the economy sputtering and a war in progress, the Senate has more pressing business to conduct before the August recess. The vote on an amendment on gay marriage, with the outcome already known, is not just a distraction. It is a cynical waste of time.