By the Rev. Michael Piazza, 90.1 commentator
Dallas, TX – Long ago, the religious right discovered that effective fund-raising requires an "enemy" or threat. Taking a page from their playbook, President Bush has now endorsed an amendment that would enshrine heterosexual rights in the U.S. Constitution.
This would be the first time in American history that the Constitution would be used to restrict the equal rights of a certain group of citizens. Same-sex taxpayers would be excluded from the same civil rights that protect heterosexual taxpayers. The President clearly believes this is a religious issue and advocates writing it into the Constitution in a way that designates a group of taxpayers as open and available to discrimination.
The Cathedral of Hope routinely performs marriages for both same-sex and heterosexual couples. The services are often identical in every way. We do not discriminate. The government, however, does. The President is advocating that this discrimination now be made a permanent part of our nation's highest governing document.
The President, in his remarks, stated that "most religions define marriage as between a man and a woman." Certainly, each religion should have the right to define their religious beliefs. But, what the President is advocating would enshrine the religious beliefs of the majority in the Constitution. Our church would be constitutionally banned from practicing our religion, which believes that same sex covenants are just as sacred as heterosexual covenants.
Conservative state legislatures could pass a whole series of discriminatory laws based on the fact that the Constitution makes provision for discrimination against same-sex couples. If gay couples can be discriminated against in marriage, why not housing or employment?
My partner and I have been together for nearly 24 years. We obey the law, pay our taxes, vote and recycle. We are good citizens. What justifies the President deciding that our relationship doesn't deserve the rights for which our tax dollars pay? Is he going to advocate giving gay couples a tax break? After 24 years in love, my relationship is not afforded the same civil protections as Britney Spears was given when she got married for 24 hours as a joke.
The President was good enough to leave open the possibility of civil unions. Apparently he forgot the lessons of the '60s when we rejected the ideology of "separate but equal." People who are upset by the actions of the mayor of San Francisco have also forgotten the lessons of civil disobedience learned in that same era.
Identifying a particular group of taxpayers as ineligible for certain civil rights will not protect the institution of marriage. However, putting this discrimination into the Constitution based on the religious beliefs of the majority will do much more damage to the social landscape of America than gay marriage ever could. Do we really want a country like those in the Middle East where the religious leaders of the majority have their beliefs enshrined in the Constitution? While we advocate for the rights of the minorities in Iraq, should we be restricting a groups civil rights in this country?
It is time for the President to stop pandering to the radical religious views of a certain sect. The war in Iraq and the economy need his leadership and attention, but apparently the President feels an almost desperate need to change the subject.
The Rev. Michael Piazza is dean of the Cathedral of Hope in Dallas - the world's largest gay and lesbian church.