George W. Bush's decision to support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is a betrayal of our history as a nation and of our principles as a republic. It is an attack on gay families and on our very status as citizens in this country. I will not be voting to re-elect the president.
It is one thing to oppose gay marriage. Every major candidate for president opposes it, as do most politicians in both parties. Recognizing the union of same-sex couples is a significant change to the institution. We are right to approach such changes slowly and cautiously.
But supporting a constitutional amendment on the subject is another matter entirely. The Federal Marriage Amendment, introduced in both the House and the Senate, would prevent even state legislatures from recognizing gay marriages. It is an attempt to cut off debate before the people have a chance to think seriously about the issue.
An amendment would relegate gay Americans to permanent second-class status, something we have never amended the Constitution to do to any group of people. Next to the Constitution's majestic words mandating that government may not "deny to any person...the equal protection of the laws" would be a cheap taunt, "except for queers."
Though the president has no formal role in the constitutional amendment process, the prestige of his office makes his voice critical. If an amendment banning gay marriage actually passes, Bush will have done more harm to gay people than any president in our history.
In his February 24 announcement, Bush said we need a constitutional amendment to prevent activist judges and lawless public officials from imposing gay marriages on the whole country. That's nonsense. No federal court has imposed gay marriage on the country and none is likely to do so for the foreseeable future. We have never amended the Constitution to deal with hypothetical future court decisions.
Notably, though, Bush also suggested an amendment is needed to prevent a state from defining marriage as it sees fit. To reach this conclusion, he must repudiate two centuries of American history and the principles of the GOP respecting the power of the states.
Why abandon our history and tradition? Because, in Bush's words, marriage "promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society." He never bothered to explain how gay marriage threatens either of these things.
Marriage is "the most enduring human institution," he said. That's fine. Propose an amendment banning no-fault divorce and we can talk. But that would offend many of his traditional-values buddies who've had multiple divorces, none of them caused by gays.
Every time he says or does something anti-gay, Bush reminds us to treat people with "dignity and respect." Since he cannot even bring himself to use the word "gay" in public, that's an empty banality. Please don't patronize me by saying you respect my dignity while you're claiming I threaten Western civilization by loving another person.
I've repeatedly defended President Bush in this space. I've pointed out that, despite predictions to the contrary, he has hired many openly gay people to work in his administration. He has also left in place Clinton-era executive orders forbidding anti-gay discrimination in federal employment. These were precedent-setting moves for a Republican.
I'm also closer to Bush than to the Democrats on many non-gay issues. On defense and foreign policy, he has rightly taken the fight to the enemy more aggressively than a Democrat would. On economic policy, though he's been a profligate spender and an inconsistent defender of free trade, he's better than a Democrat would be on both counts.
Does my opposition to Bush make me a single-issue voter? Perhaps. But there are some issues of transcendent importance. They go to the core of our equal citizenship in this society. They outweigh many other considerations. When a president attacks your life and your family on national television and says we ought to write that attack for all time into the country's fundamental law, he has crossed a line that makes it impossible to support him with integrity.
George W. Bush is not the president of any country I recognize or want to be any part of. He is the president of some other country, one that believes the commitment of two people to one another is a threat to everyone else.
The country I love is better than that. It is a country that will defeat this vicious federal amendment and make its way, by fits and starts, over time and through debate, to a better understanding of gay life. It will climb out of the ignorance that produces the fear that fuels the call for an amendment.
Perhaps Bush doesn't actually believe an amendment is necessary and is only supporting one to satisfy religious conservatives. If so, that's even worse since he can't even claim sincerity as a defense. It's a new low in anti-gay political opportunism.
I've been a Republican since I could spell the word. At 13, I stuffed envelopes and made phone calls for Ronald Reagan. At 17, I formed a Republican group in my high school. In law school, I co-founded a conservative debating society. I've been a GOP precinct chairman and been a delegate to two state Republican conventions. I've attended three national conventions.
I remain a Republican and still believe something properly called conservatism can be squared with equality for gay Americans. But you can count me out this November.