The issue of so-called gay "marriage" seems to be constantly in the news these days. The Massachusetts Supreme Court recently decided that homosexuals have a right to marry in Massachusetts, and now marriage licenses for homosexual couples are being issued in San Francisco in violation of California state law. These events follow several years after Vermont established civil unions which in many ways legally mimic marriage for homosexuals.

Unfortunately, looking at recent events, there can be no question which side is driving the issue in the contemporary political battle over the nature of marriage. While homosexual activists are pushing their agenda as much as they can on every level of government and society as a whole, those in government and politics who supposedly want to defend traditional marriage are heming and hawing. President Bush has repeatedly flirted with the idea of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, but still has not actually endorsed the idea. He has said that "if judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process." However, this statement is meaningless, because this statement came after the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision, when the "if" clause stated here was already a reality. Activist judges are "forcing their arbitrary will upon the people" on the issue of marriage, but Bush still refuses to commit to supporting a constitutional amendment to deal with this problem. With marriage licenses now being issued to homosexuals in San Francisco, Bush says that he is watching the situation carefully, and he is "troubled" by it. Really? Troubled, eh? That sounds serious ... but not serious enough to try to do anything about it, apparently. Bush seems continuously on the point of deciding that the situation is serious enough to warrant a constitutional amendment, but it is not apparent what would convince him that the situation has reached that level of seriousness.

All that said, Bush probably will endorse the idea of a consitutional amendment on marriage sometime in the near future. Whether or not he will give the level of support to it that will be necessary for it to have any chance of passing and being ratified is another question. However, an even better question is what such an amendment would really mean. The amendment proposal that seems to be under consideration at the White House is one put forward by Marilyn Musgrave, a Republican U.S. Representative from Colorado. This amendment would define marriage as a union between a man and woman. However, it would allow states to pass civil union laws (like the one currently in place in Vermont). The proposed amendment would protect the rights of states without civil union laws to deny legal recognition to such unions from other states. In other words, this amendment is much like the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, except that whereas the Defense of Marriage Act was on the level of federal law, this amendment would put these matters on a constitutional level. (Just for the information of those interested, John Kerry was one of only fourteen senators who voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, which was signed by President Clinton. John Edwards was not in the Senate at the time. He has said he agreed with Kerry's vote, but Edwards seemed to be under the mistaken impression that the Defense of Marriage Act interfered with the ability of states to recognize homosexual unions from other states if they wished to do so.)

If the proposed constitutional amendment is intended more or less to raise the principles included in the Defense of Marriage Act to the constitutional level, then that is fine as far as it goes. Many people fear, and not without reason, that the Supreme Court might one day strike down the Defense of Marriage Act. I think it is likely that, barring a consitutional amendment or significant changes in the personnel of the Court, the Supreme Court will recognize a consitutional right to marriage, or some relationship legally equivalent to marriage, within the next five years, or ten at the most. As Justice Antonin Scalia pointed out, the basis for that recognition is already contained in the recent Lawrence v. Texas decision. A constitutional amendment would be a kind of proactive defense against the possibility of such a Supreme Court decision universally legalizing gay marriage in the United States. Another effect of the amendment that would go beyond the scope of the Defense of Marriage act would be that, while the Defense of Marriage Act only defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman for purposes of federal government policy, amending the Constition as proposed would apply this definition to state marriage laws as well, thus banning gay marriage. These are the basic reasons why social conservatives are clamoring for Bush to endorse this constitutional amendment on marriage. However, social conservatives, and all Catholics, should recognize the flaws in such a solution.

In a certain sense, given that the proposed amendment allows civil unions, this amendment is more about vocabulary than anything else. All it really says is that homosexual unions cannot legally be called marriages. As far as I can tell, the Vermont civil unions law that was so controversial a few years ago would be completely acceptable under the new amendment. Any state would be free to establish homosexual unions that are exactly the same as marriages in every way from the perspective of state law, as long as the state does not actually use the word "marriage" to refer to the legal status of homosexual unions. This means that the proposed Constitutional amendment would be something of an empty victory for the defense of marriage.

Yes, it is better if civil unions are not referred to as marriages, but people who really want to defend marriage, and not just the word "marriage," cannot concede the acceptability of civil union laws in the first place. The recognition of civil unions amounts to condoning grave immorality, and furthermore it is a legal lie. Such recognition rests on the notion that homosexual unions are more or less the same as, or at least parallel to, the heterosexual union of marriage. That is simply not true. Even apart from the immorality of homosexual activity, no homosexual relationship can ever be the same as a marriage. This is not just a matter of words. The reality of marriage is completely and essentially different than the reality of a homosexual relationship of any kind. To mention just one point, the natural complementarity and ordering towards fruitfulness through mutual self-gift that are intrinsic to marriage are in no way present in homosexuality. Furthermore, an important consequence of that point for any society is that marriages naturally tend towards the building and maintaining of families, while homosexual relationships do not. Marriage is and can only be a relationship between a man and a woman, and no homosexual relationship can ever be equivalent to marriage. This truth has been recognized basically throughout most of recorded human history, even in societies that did not morally condemn homosexual activity, but this is where George W. Bush and many others like him go completely wrong.

President Bush has made it clear that he will not support an amendment that would ban civil unions. He said in an interview with Diane Sawyer on ABC in December: "The position of this administration is that, you know, whatever legal arrangements people want to make, they're allowed to make, so long as it's embraced by the state." Thus, for him, amending the constitution is only about defending the word "marriage." Apparently, he has no firm beliefs about the uniqueness of marriage itself as an institution, nor does he believe that marriage is something that is above and beyond the whims of the state. In fact, Bush, like many other Americans, obviously has a very basic misunderstanding of marriage, and indeed of all reality. In response to a recent question about the gay marriage issue, Bush said that "marriage ought to be defined by the people, not by the courts." Wrong! Leaving marriage to the definition of the people is no more legitimate than leaving it to the definition of the courts. Some things are not determined by government decisions, whether those decisions spring from judicial decrees or votes of the people. Marriage is one of those things that is not subject to the government. Indeed, marriage is more fundamental to the nature of human existence than government. Marriage itself in effect defines the family, which is the most basic unit of society. If we accept the idea that the nature of marriage is negotiable, then we will tear the fabric of society as it has never been torn before.

Of course, it is ridiculous that we as a nation need an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to define marriage as something between a man and a woman, and that we think the definition of marriage is something that is subject to our political debates and negotiations. What's next, a constitutional amendment defining the law of gravity? Or perhaps one declaring that, for purposes of United States government decisions, the sky is blue. The Founding Fathers would think we were crazy. For that matter probably about 99.99% of all the people who ever lived before us would think we were crazy. The situation makes a strong statement about how far we have fallen as a society. It is possible that there will be a constitutional amendment legally defining the word "marriage," and if so, hopefully this amendment will do some good at least in preventing a disastrous change in the meaning of the word. However, the very fact that this debate is occurring is a sign of widespread moral corruption, and a fundamental societal disconnect from reality, and no amendment to any constitution will fix that.