President Bush on Tuesday declared his support for an amendment to the Constitution that would ban gay marriage, saying the union of a man and a woman is "the most fundamental institution of civilization" and that it cannot be separated from its "cultural, religious and natural roots" without weakening society. (New York Times)

It’s sad to see the President take this step, even though we all knew was coming. The Constitution is a document revered for giving rights to individuals – women, blacks, voters – not about taking them away.

Yes, many Americans oppose gay marriage. But that doesn’t mean the debate is over. There was a time when it was considered immoral for blacks and whites to marry each other. How ashamed we’d be if we had adopted a Constitutional amendment against that. Times will change, opinions will change. We are already seeing debate in the states, which are certainly up to the task of sorting out what their citizens want:

Why can't California be trusted to sort out the situation in San Francisco, and Massachusetts legislators and voters to address whatever deficiencies they find in their own court's rulings? And if down the road the voters of some state opt for a legal regime different than that favored by Mr. Bush, why should the Constitution impede their democratic choice? The federal Defense of Marriage Act already guarantees that no state has to recognize a same-sex union performed in another state. (Washington Post)

The President’s actions threaten to dismantle the legal protections gays have received in recent years. Not to mention the fact that he is using the power of the federal government to isolate a subgroup of Americans – something usually associated with shameful episodes from our country’s past (slavery, actions against Native Americans, WWII-era internments). Now we have Bush’s proposed Constitutional amendment to add to this sad list – an action that he couches in lofty language of “decency” and “kindness”:

The President closed his endorsement of the amendment by insisting that "our government should respect every person" and requesting that Americans "conduct this difficult debate in a manner worthy of our country . . . with kindness and goodwill and decency." In the context of a divisive proposal, this request didn't just ring hollow; it clanged. (Washington Post)