Bush's hate crime legislation

President Bush finally called for the quick passage of an amendment to ban gay marriage last week. His support is like that of the Supreme Court Justices who decided Plessy v. Ferguson and of the segregationalists who opposed integrated or interracial dating, bus-riding, water-fountain-drinking, marriage, and military service. His call for an amendment taking away the rights of a specific group of Americans is no different from that of the government officials who sent over 120,000 Japanese Americans into concentration camps during World War II and who for so long denied women the right to vote. Fundamentally, all of these actions institutionalize bigotry.

There are two aspects of the debate coming from Bush and archconservatives that make no sense (other than when placed in the context of their desire to manipulate intelligent discussion). First is the claim of "activist judges" and second is the indefensible use of the word "protection."

Unfortunately, there are judges on the bench who are willing to remind our country's people that they accidentally created an all-inclusive Constitution — once a few amendments were thrown in to clarify that "all" really means all — i.e. blacks and women, too. These "activist judges" are interpreting the Constitution, or a particular state constitution if you will, as it is actually written instead of how a powerful group — and perhaps over half of the country — now wishes it had been written.

The term activist judge is a ridiculous misnomer. The judges in Massachusetts simply did their duty by confirming that the state does not have the right to take away the rights of homosexuals just because they are homosexuals. The judges who decided cases leading to integration such as Brown v. Board were also labeled activist judges by their opponents. In 50 years this will hopefully be obvious in the same way we can all — perhaps I should say almost all — look back at the enforced segregation of American schools with contempt today. So why wait 50 years to recognize our inhumane bigotry and prejudice when it can be avoided?

Secondly, the use of the word "protection" is a classic trademark of an administration that titles initiatives that increase pollution "Clear Skies" — we are now facing the worst pollution rates in decades — and government programs that further the inequalities in the school system "No Child Left Behind" (funding cuts for poor schools).

Certainly Bush is not protecting the children of homosexual parents by denying their parents the opportunity to participate fully in society. Certainly this amendment will not protect the love between two adults. Certainly this madness will not protect the stability of our nation or the livelihoods of the tens of millions of homosexuals in this country. The civil institution of marriage confers over 1,200 rights and responsibilities to married couples. Without these legal rights homosexuals simply cannot be equal citizens in this society, meaning their children cannot be equal citizens either.

Is it not obvious that adding an amendment to the Constitution of the United States that takes away rights from a particular group of minority citizens is a bad idea? None of the 17 amendments to the Constitution since the Bill of Rights has required discrimination against a group of Americans. Amendments classically expand rights, not limit them.

Passing this amendment will inevitably scar our Constitution in an irrevocable manner. Although we can pass a future amendment repealing this so-called "marriage protection" amendment, it will always be there, haunting our collective conscious.

If we had added a "marriage protection" amendment to the Constitution 100 years ago, codifying marriage as it existed then, Americans today would not be allowed to marry out of their own "race" and women could not ask for divorce, own property, or seek legal protection from physically and sexually abusive husbands. I would like to think we can breath a collective sigh of relief that such an amendment was not adopted. In the case of Bush's amendment proposal, we should learn not only from the mistakes we have made, but also from the mistakes we have avoided.

Personally, I think it would be best to separate the religious institution of marriage from the legal, secular and state/rights-based institution of civil unions. This way the state can confer equal rights on all unions — heteroor homosexual — while still allowing individual religious groups to define marriage as they wish and only marry those who fit their criteria. Robin Williams is a Wilson School major from Greensboro, N.C. You can reach him at awilliam@princeton.edu.