This amendment is a very bad idea.

The proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, which defines marriage as "the union of a man and a woman" and strips states of the right to define marriage within their own borders, is no more than government-sanctioned discrimination.

It would also be the first time since Prohibition that we've amended the Constitution to limit rights rather than extend them, going against the very ideals the Constitution was written to uphold.

That doesn't seem to bother President Bush. "On an issue of such great consequence," he said, "the people's voice must be heard."

But prejudice, even when it is supported by a majority, (and I'm not so sure the "people's voice" would agree with Bush) is still wrong. Fifty years ago, most people disapproved of interracial marriage. This issue is no different. It is a matter of denying a group of people the privileges everyone else automatically receives.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recognized this, ruling Wednesday that gays are entitled to nothing less than marriage, and even Vermont-style civil unions would be unconstitutional. "The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal," four justices wrote.

As of May 17, Massachusetts will be the first state to allow same-sex marriages. However, the Federal Marriage Amendment — and a similar state constitutional amendment proposed in Massachusetts — could, if passed, supercede the court ruling.

This is not a religious issue. Religious denominations have the freedom to perform marriages for whomever they choose, as they should. They would still have this freedom if the right to marry were extended to everyone.

But if committed gay couples want to get married by a town justice or a progressive pastor, why shouldn't they be able to? Why shouldn't they have access to the 1,049 rights and benefits (outlined in 1997 by the U.S. General Accounting Office) endowed by the government to married couples?

For example, a gay person could be barred from visiting his partner in the hospital and would not receive Social Security survivor's benefits should his partner die — even though he's been paying into the Social Security system at the same rate as the rest of us.

Only the ability to marry would extend these rights. Other efforts — such as Vermont's civil unions and the domestic partner registry the city of Oneonta is looking at establishing — are a step in the right direction but offer limited privileges that are not recognized in other states.

There are those who argue that the institution of marriage was set up for a man and a woman, for the sole purpose of procreation. What then, of the couples who can't or won't have children? I don't hear anyone proposing an amendment barring them from getting married.

The root of the problem is this: People are afraid that if we treat gays as equals, more people will "decide" to be gay.

I believe this fear is baseless. People are either gay or they're not, and the only "choice" is whether to acknowledge or suppress their orientation.

When society does the right thing and accepts gays as equals, there will be more openly gay people — but not more gay people.

Are people in small towns ready to witness a kiss between two men or explain to their children why a classmate has two mommies? Probably not. I'll be honest and admit I'm not prepared to deal with those issues myself. But that's no reason to support categorical discrimination.

In his State of the Union address, Bush urged Congress to "defend the sanctity of marriage." If anyone is threatening the sanctity of the institution, it's the heterosexuals.

With the divorce rate hovering around 50 percent, it's clear we don't take marriage seriously enough. Too many couples are either entering into it lightly, a la Britney Spears, or not working hard enough to make it last.

Then there's our cultural obsession with reality TV shows such as "The Bachelor" and "Average Joe" that make marriage into a game — or worse.

The latest hit, "My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiancé," is touted by Fox as "the ultimate practical joke." A woman must convince her family that she has fallen in love with a large, annoying buffoon and intends to marry him. Unbeknownst to her, the "fiancé" is an actor charged with doing his best to repulse her and alienate her family. If the bride-to-be succeeds in getting her parents and siblings to show up for the wedding, she wins $500,000.

I find it ridiculous that this "couple" can get married, but two women who have been in a committed relationship for 15 years cannot.

———

Lisa Miller is a freelance writer who lives in Oneonta. She can be reached at lisamiller44@hotmail.com.