So Bush wants a Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages. I’m honestly unsurprised by his announcement this morning. He’s demonstrated time and again his willingness to run roughshod over our rights; it was only a matter of time before he sought to rewrite the Constitution in his image.

But how can this not be an issue of human and civil rights?

If Bush, et al, have their way, an entire class of people will be denied the right to marry the person of their choice because of an intrinsic part of their makeup. Why is this course of action palatable to its proponents, and how is it any different than the wrong-headedness of the early twentieth century that saw blacks somehow unfit to marry whites?

I guess I don’t understand why advocates of the ban on gay marriage are so insecure in the institution of marriage that they feel it’s their sacred duty to defend it. It’s not a zero-sum game, folks: Your marriage is no less true if two men marry each other or if two women marry each other.

If two people are lucky enough to find each other and to fall in love in this world we move through, why should any of us admit impediments to their union, same-sex or otherwise?