Editorial board of the Daily Herald - An amendment on gay marriage? No

Editorial board of the Daily Herald
May 9, 2006
Copyright by The Daily Herald


An amendment on gay marriage? No

Illinois law currently prohibits gay marriage, but that remains
insufficient for those determined to use the state constitution for
divisive and exclusionary purposes.

On Monday, supporters of a state constitutional amendment to ban gay
marriage turned in more than 300,000 signatures in their effort to
place this question on November's general election ballot: Should
marriage be defined as being between one man and one woman?

The referendum would be only advisory — not binding. But backers hope
that a strong "yes" vote might pressure state legislators into
initiating a constitutional amendment. An amendment, supporters say,
is needed because courts can overturn state laws, as happened in
Massachusetts.

There may well be some challenging issues surrounding the question of
whether gay marriages or civil unions or some similar variation should
be codified by the state.

There is, however, nothing remotely challenging about the question of
whether either the Illinois or U.S. Constitution should be used to ban
gay marriage — it clearly should not be.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich, opposed to such an amendment in Illinois, gets
it right when he says that such an amendment would be pointlessly
divisive.

Getting it right, too, is former U.S. Sen. John Danforth, a Missouri
Republican, who calls the national push for a constitutional amendment
"silly." Danforth points out, correctly, that "once before, the
Constitution was amended to try to deal with matters of human
behavior: that was Prohibition. That was such a flop that that was
repealed 13 years later."

If anything, an amendment banning gay marriage would be further off
base, aiming, as it would, at the behavior stemming from sexual
orientation, an orientation most likely set at birth or a very early
age.

As we've acknowledged before, a majority of Americans indicate through
polls that they oppose gay marriage. No, not all opposition is rooted
in prejudice. Theological and cultural beliefs come into play, making
difficult the question of sanctioning gay marriage or, to some extent,
civil unions.

That, however, neither explains nor justifies the aggressive movement
by some to use either the federal or state constitution — remarkable
and treasured for their enumeration of and protection of rights — in
such an exclusionary manner.

Puzzling, too, is how advocates of constitutional bans on gay marriage
can seriously present their efforts as defense of traditional
marriage. The idea that one couple's gay union somehow threatens any
other couple's straight marriage or the institution of marriage itself
is beyond comprehension.

We'd rather not see this question on the ballot at all. But if the
petitions turned in Monday stand up to scrutiny, and the question is
placed, we hope Illinois residents will hand it the resounding defeat
it deserves.