Do we really need a "marriage amendment" to the U.S. Constitution?

The Bush Administration is at it again. They're creating another Straw Man to whip the base up into a frenzy prior to the '06 election.

The Republican-led groundswell is building for an amendment to the U.S. Consitution that would prohibit gays or lesbians from marrying. Considering that the Defense of Marriage Act was passed by a Republican congress and signed into law by a Democratic president (Bill Clinton), is such an amendment really needed? Should it be hogging Congressional time, money and talent while war, natural disasters, global warming, border and port security, disappearing healthcare and so many other pressing issues take a back seat?

The "Defense of Marriage" act left the decision about whether or not to allow same-sex marriages up to individual states. Every state is free to prohibit same-sex marriage and to deny recognition of such marriages consumated in other states. Many states, in fact, have done just that and the law is settled. Others however, are still debating the issue in their legislatures and state courts. Such is the natural, organic process by which state law is decided and settled.

That's not good enough for the Bush Administration. In his June 3 radio speech, George Bush threw out a red herring: "If that [Defense of Marriage] act is overturned by activist courts, then marriages recognized in one city or state might have to be recognized as marriages everywhere else."

Hey wait a second, George. State courts have no jurisdiction whatsoever over the Defense of Marriage Act, which is Federal law. While there are some who think the act wouldn't meet a constitutional sniff test, our current Supreme Court has already declined to hear challenges. Even if they were forced to hear a challenge, no doubt this court would come down clearly on the side of the act.

No, I'm afraid the real reason why a marriage amendment is coming up now has nothing to do with the courts or the states or even the "morality" of same-sex marriage. It has to do with getting "the base" out to the polls this November.

If the Democrats take the House and/or Senate this fall, assuming even a fraction of the new Congressional Democrats actually have a spine, George Bush and/or his handlers could conceivably find themselves out of work. At the very least, with anything resembling balance of power restored to American government, Bush's role as "The Decider" would be in jeopardy. That's a pretty terrifying prospect for a cabal that's Hell-bent on world domination.

The first attempt at straw-men were "illegal aliens." The attempt may have whipped up some white folks at the border, but it alienated agribusiness no end (not to mention the undocumented workers themselves). So, in typical Rove style, the administration found a substitute straw man.

This one happens to be gay.