A constitutional amendment forbidding gay marriage? Ack. For the record, I oppose gay marriage. But I'm pro civil-unions. But I am definitely not in favor of mucking around with the constitution in order to thwart gays trying to twist the definition of marriage to now fit them.

The issue is fairly complex. We could probably get a majority of people who would favor gays having the right to civil unions. The problem is that civil unions don't provide any federal rights. Civil unions provide the same benefits to couples as marriage does, but none of the federal benefits (such as social security). The real problem is that marriage is something the government shouldn't have gotten involved with in the first place. It should have had civil unions between two people with marriage remaining a purely religious institution -- i.e. a religious wrapper on top of a federal civil union.  But it didn't and now we have this idiotic mess.

The problem I have with gay marriage is that is that I really don't like "special interests" (and let's face it, the gay rights advocates are about as "special interest" as you get) trying to shove their values down the throats of the vast majority of Americans. Marriage has been defined as being between a man and a woman for thousands of years. That is what marriage is. Don't shoot the messenger but marriage has long been defined and no tiny special interest group should have the right to change marriage for their own sake. I mean hell, I know I'm not "cool". But maybe I'd like to be cool. Maybe if I make a big enough stink I can force the courts to redefine what cool is to fit my description (nerdy opinionated guy).  In other words, it's a semantics issue.

But again, we have this mess. I don't like the idea of gays being able to call their unions "marriage". But I strongly oppose the federal government withholding any rights from any two consenting adults. Heck, I also firmly believe that civil unions should extend to any number of people. I actually think it would be beneficial to society if civil unions were extended to multiple people. Think about it, you could have families or groups of families able to legally share their resources more seamlessly. Sure, the share per person would be much smaller.  We already have these concepts on the Internet in the form of clans or guilds and what not where groups work under an official framework to help one another that is recognized by the controlling authority.  Even here on JoeUser.com we have blog groups where people can get together and combine their blogs into one.  Why shouldn't individuals do the same?

So rather than trying to screw with the constitution, the President could instead propose to try to be...you know...a leader. He could propose a federal law allowing civil unions between any two people. This could later be extended upwards to more people. The civil unions would then have the same exact federal and state protections marriage has while allowing marriage to slowly evolve into a purely religious institution which becomes an issue only between the individuals and their church.

I am a strong believer in democracy. And I know most Americans are against gay marriage. But at the same time, I think most Americans could be convinced of the validity for federal civil union laws. Consenting adults should not be legally restricted in what sort of legal arrangements they wish to enter into.

Bush has really made a mistake by taking such a militant line. I mean that statistically too. His "base" tends to be of people who hold the constitution to be quite sacred. People like myself. I would rather see the courts rule that gays can be "married" than add an amendment to the constitution. He missed an opportunity to be a leader of a nation rather than a leader of a political party today. He has also opened the door to his opposition, John Kerry, who can now play the role of moderate by espousing the viewpoint I just wrote about here. Marriage no, constitution sanctity yes, federal civil unions yes.