The Senate recently rejected a Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have banned same-sex marriages. Some say this issue is simply a diversion from more important issues. Others feel it will have an impact on this falls election. How do you see it? The Senate recently rejected a Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have banned same-sex marriages. Some say this issue is simply a diversion from more important issues. Others feel it will have an impact on this falls election. How do you see it?

On Feb. 25, President Bush announced his support for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. At the end of his statement, he said that we should conduct this debate "in a matter worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger. In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and good will and decency."

I would welcome such a discussion, but unfortunately this is not what I have heard. Instead, I hear the same emotional, fear-producing phrases repeated constantly, with little questioning and no reasonable explanations. The fact that I do not see the President and other advocates of the proposed constitutional amendment conducting the discussion with "good will and decency" leads me to believe that they are deliberately using it to stir up unfounded fears, divisions and hatred, and as a diversion from other issues. This does not mean, however, that the issue will have no impact on this fall's election. Unfortunately, prominent proponents of the constitutional amendment are probably correct in their assessment that they can sway some voters into not really analyzing the issues, but rather to vote based on negative emotions.

The President's Feb. 25 statement spoke of a few "activist judges" and local officials making an "aggressive attempt to redefine marriage" and "presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization." "Democratic action" is needed, according to the President, "if we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever."

Our own state's Sen. Rick Santorum recently said, "We're in the process right now of judges and vigilantes - people taking justice into their own hands," devaluing marriage, and "deciding to change the law without either the courts or the legislature acting."

Former Presidential candidate Gary Bauer, President Bush, and many other proponents of the constitutional ban have stated that every civilization known in the world has "defined marriage" in the same way for thousands of years!

So the basic message demagogued every day is: A few vigilantes with no decent values are aggressively changing timeless (God-given?) "meanings" and "definitions" and threatening the welfare of children, the stability of society, and the whole of civilization! Pretty scary, "evil" stuff! Maybe the work of the Devil!

But what about conducting this discussion in a manner worthy of our country? Instead of name-calling, instead of language cleverly designed to promote fear, hatred, and division, what about a reasonable discussion based on answering questions with real explanations?

If I could sit in a room with the President or Sen. Santorum, these are some questions I would like to ask: Why do you portray the judges in question "vigilantes" who are taking the law into their own hands and "redefining" marriage? I am sure they do not consider this to be what they are doing. For instance, the Massachusetts State Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law for all citizens. Couldn't it be that the judges really believe they are properly interpreting their state's constitution? Just HOW does extending marriage rights to all citizens "devalue" or harm marriage or children - or anyone, for that matter? (Can you answer concretely, without resorting to vague emotional phrases about changing meanings and definitions?)

How can you possibly say that marriage has been the same in all civilizations for thousands of years? I can remember being disappointed and a bit shocked as a child when reading the Bible, to find that there was no mention of the wedding ceremonies and vows I had witnessed repeatedly on television - and that quite a few great men of God had many wives! What about the human societies where the brothers of the mothers had responsibilities for raising her children - not biological fathers? And who could argue with the fact that the "commitment to love and serve" was normally a one-way commitment on the part of the woman until recently?

Why do you say the "purpose" of marriage is for raising children? If that is the case, then what about opposite-sex couples who are elderly or infertile? Or those who just don't want to have children? Should they be banned from marriage?

What kinds of policies will do the most to encourage the long-term commitment of people to each other, promote the welfare of children, and bring out the best of human values? What about economic policies that guarantee a living wage, time off with pay, child care, and good health care for all? (The June 17 report from the Project on Global Working Families found that the United States offers fewer working family benefits than most other nations.) This would ensure that these issues would not be sources of stress leading to tearing families apart. What about free marriage counseling? What about less promotion of a corporate/consumer culture and promotion of a culture of citizenship instead? Corporate culture is about thinking of the greatest returns for the least investment, me first, no longterm commitments or relationships, externalizing costs (making someone else pay) - that is, the worst possible human values.

Suppose we thought of ourselves mainly as consumers in a marketplace. Would that not promote a breakdown of society and decent human values? Everything and everyone becomes a commodity to be used, bought, and sold.

These are the types of questions that need to be seriously addressed to conduct a discussion with kindness and good will and decency. Are there any strong supporters of a Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage willing to go the distance to have this debate in a manner worthy of our country?