Faults in Bush's constitutional amendment idea

I am relieved and happy to hear that the Massachusetts Supreme Court determined that consenting adults have the right to marry, regardless of gender. Though we, as a nation, have reached many milestones in the road to equality in the eyes of the law, it is unfortunate that road is still long and hard, since there are those who seek to take away our progress and hope.

President Bush declared that he would support a U.S. Constitutional amendment to limit marriage between a man and a woman. He mentioned that centuries of history prove that the exclusiveness of marriage is necessary for social and familial stability. I equate this to an "If-it-isn't-broken-don't-fix-it" way of thinking, rather than a logical argument based on the ideal that all citizens should be blessed with fair and equitable treatment.

I agree with the Massachusetts Supreme Court that the current definition of marriage is discriminatory, in the sense that the government has interest in civil marriage for the sake of encouraging procreation and family security. However, no government checks their reproductive potential or the intent of raising children before they are married. Therefore, it implies the reason for supporting civil marriage must not be essential to the definition of marriage and it leaves the validity of denying marriage to couples based on gender questionable. Despite the truth of this argument, I do not believe it hits the root of the issue.

Whether or not gay marriage should be allowed should not be based on a technicality or by consensus of the general population. It should be determined by what is fundamentally right and true. If we believe that marriage is guaranteed for all, that love is essential for marriage, and if love is indeed exclusive, how can we deny anyone that loves each other the right to marry? If you are lucky enough to find someone to spend the rest of your life with, by all means marry that person.

I try to read as many arguments as I can from pro-family supporters. The general ideas I see are similar to what President Bush uses to rationalize his position. In addition, they speak of gays and lesbians seeking to undermine the foundation of the family and that the sanctity of marriage must be protected at all cost. I find that accusation very offensive. First of all, it is crazy to think that gays and lesbians fight so hard for marriage for malicious reasons, when their motivation is the opposite. It is about protecting the person you love. The statement also may be interpreted as gay and lesbian couples are inherently not as nurturing to a family as heterosexual couples, and may distort the idea of family. I believe that family is so deeply rooted in our society, that no union of sound minded and loving individuals can hurt this ideal.

In addition, gays and lesbians have not been given the chance to prove themselves nor should they have to. Lastly, I believe the sanctity of marriage does not lie in who you marry, but in promise to love and cherish each other, in sickness and in health, for rich or poor, until death do they part. If that promise is empty, then there is no sanctity in the marriage.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge anyone who believes everyone should have the right to marry to fight the motion to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage. It is not in the interest of family; it is not in the interest of protecting marriage. It will only perpetuate and rationalize injustice and inequality, polluting the very document that protects our liberty and inalienable rights.

Andrew Kang is a senior majoring in mathematics.