I'd just like to take the time to rebut three of the arguments that I'm hearing from critics of President Bush's call for a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage.

1. Critics say that the definition of marriage is something that should be left to the states. Well, yes, under current law, that is the case. There is nothing in the Constitution currently that says anything about the federal government defining marriage, and so this power not reserved for the federal government goes to the states. But President Bush is calling for an amendment to the Constitution. By definition, that changes things. If and when such an amendment is enacted, then the definition of marriage WILL be a federal issue, because that's what the Constitution will say. Bush wants the amendment because he doesn't like the fact that the definition of marriage is currently left up to states.

2. Many are complaining that because this is an election year, and Bush's reelection campaign is just getting started, he's using this as a "wedge issue," harming gays "for political gain." Bush is obviously aware of the fact that he's facing reelection. I'm sure that he's looking for ways to attract voters. I still suspect that the main reason he's doing this is because he feels it needs to be done. But even if he is thinking that he'll be more likely to be reelected on this issue, what's wrong with that? Candidates take positions on issues all the time in an effort to try to win votes. If the majority of the people agrees with the candidate, they vote him in. If the majority disagrees, they don't vote him in. That's the way a democratic republic like ours works. I don't think there's anything wrong with a candidate taking a stand on a very controversial issue, in the hopes that the majority of the people will agree. Sure, the system is full of safeguards that ensure that minorities aren't oppressed, but the general rule is that the majority rules. President Bush's statement will help a lot of voters on both sides of the issue easily decide how to vote in November. Isn't that a good thing?

3. The perfect framing of the issue for opponents of the amendment is to say that it would "write discrimination into the Constitution." They say that the amendment would "change" the fundamental fabric of our nation and make it take away rights from people for the first time. I won't even bother arguing that Prohibition took away rights from Americans (OK, OK, it was repealed). But this argument is fundamentally flawed. Discrimination is the treatment of one group of people differently than another group. Even assuming that homosexuals are a distinct "group" (a contention that I seriously contend with), they would be treated no differently than heterosexuals by such an amendment. Neither group could marry a person of the same sex. Sure, that would make it impossible for some people to marry the person of their choice, but there are already laws like that in place (restrictions on number, age, relationship, consent, etc.), and that's their choice. But that is not a "change" to the fundamental fabric of our nation. On the contrary, it IS the fundamental fabric of our nation. I liked a quote I read from Orrin Hatch: He said that the Constitution is going to change no matter what, "either through an amendment, or by the ruling of four activist judges in Massachusetts who are going to impose gay marriage on everyone. . . . I'd rather have the elected representatives make the decision." Because if the amendment passes, nothing will have changed from the way it has always been. No rights will be taken away because no rights ever existed in the first place.