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?

This attempt to move sexuality to the front of the political line is just another attempt for neocons to portray Bush as the "moral president." For the last year, at least, the Bush machine has been moving steadily to the right. This makes sense; this is where his support is. With Bush's fourth refusal to address the NAACP's national meetiong it became glaringly clear that Bush has no interest in courting voters that are not already predisposed to him.

In other words, Bush wants only to preach to the choir. Bush is not trying to regain disenfranchised Republicans, or even broaden his appeal. Ironically, he is trying to focus on a single demographic and make sure that he gets almost total devotion from them. These are the Evangelicals. This is the group that Bush seems most concerned with. He knows he will not get more than 8 percent of the black vote. He also does not care if he loses other voters who are offended by his I-am-not-going-because-they-weren't-nice-to-me-last-time attitude. Even though he took a fair bit of flak for this decision, in the end the balance may tip in his favor. Why? Because pandering for the black vote is not something that a "morally conservative" president would do. There is a Pandora's box of latent racism within Fundamentalist Christianity. (Save that topic for another day.)

But what does this have to do with the vote in the Senate about the "sanctity of marriage"? This is a religiously-driven issue. Marriage is described as a sacrament, meaning that God is somehow involved. Most Christians would not like to know that the earliest Christians did not see marriage this way. Marriage was not done in church. It was a legal procedure done to protect inheritance rights and guarantee certain privileges in society (sound familiar?). People were not married in church by priests until the Middle Ages!

More than anything else, the neo-cons need to keep God in the equation. It's their ace in the whole, and they are banking on this association for the election. Coupled with Bush's feelings about stem-cell research (excluding the study of Alzheimer's), liberals might think Bush is already as far right as he could go on this issue. Wrong. Many Christian political groups don't think he has gone nearly far enough to establish a "faith-based" society.

I don't think anyone believed that this amendment would actually pass the Senate. It served only to polarize politicians so that later, the voters could see who is for the "sanctity of marriage" and who, by voting against the amendment, supposedly is for a free-for-all in which any combination of people (more than two!?) could show up at a courthouse (even a church?!) and get legally married.

The whole issue is designed to make people choose. It is hoped that it will become a defining issue. And I have to hand it to them, they picked a good one, even better than the abortion issue. There is a great deal of ambivalence in our culture toward sexuality. This confusion is best seen in our attitude toward homosexuality. And now sexuality has been paired with marriage. The way the debate has been framed by the neocons (and I consider Bush to be a neocon, a category that does not include all Republicans) does not allow us to be tolerant of other people. Tolerance, from their viewpoint, amounts to endorsement, if not encouragement. If we tolerate gay marriage, we then endorse gay marriage, which means that we encourage gay marriage, which means that traditional (even biblical) forms of marriage will be undermined.

This is the same kind of thinking that told us that either we were for the war on Iraq or we were with the terrorists. It is the same tactic used to silence dissent during the war. If you question the President, then you strengthen the terrorists. The way this debate has been framed so far shows that Bush does not want debate or public discourse. He wants you and me to make a choice - a choice selected from his list of options.

This is nothing more than a trap to get people to make a decision that they might not choose to give priority in their everyday lives. I know that my marriage will not be eroded if two women get married. As a father with four children, I hope that if one or more of my children are gay (they are too young to know), society has room for them to enter into a love relationship without having to live secret lives.

And maybe that is it. Maybe we fear that if there are gay marriages, then our children will think it's OK and become gay. What kind of crazy thinking is that?

I can see one of my kids saying: "Gosh, Dad, I really can't decide whether to be gay or straight."

"Son," I reply, "marriage is defined as only between a man and women. I think you better go with the straight life. That way, you can get all those great benefits from the government. Plus you won't be looked down on as a second-class citizen."

"Thanks, Dad, I'll do just what you said."

What else but fear drives this debate - a fear based on insecurity? If the only thing going for traditional marriage is the perks, then we are in serious trouble. Even the religious angle does not hold weight. Yes, the Bible is tough on homosexuality, but it is equally tough on any kind of sex in which love is not at the center of our sexuality. Let's make a law that says that a man and woman have to love each other in marriage. Even to be found not to love each is to be in violation of the Constitution and therefore a criminal. Divorce would then be a criminal act. If you want to preserve the sanctity of marriage, then outlaw divorces based on "irreconcilable differences."

It's not that we should all just shut up about homosexuality - or any sexuality, for that matter. The issue is whether this is the kind of topic to have on a presidential platform. Bush has chosen, it appears, to run as the moral candidate (the irony of this is rich indeed). And so we see him pandering, not to black voters, or the poor, or the even the middle class, but to conservative Evangelicals who will not be satisfied until the Bible - and their selective interpretation of it - is our Constitution.

Gay marriage is a non-issue. If it has any relevance, that relevance lies in the arena of civil rights. I think most people instinctively know this, but the pressures of a presidency in decline have forced Bush to retreat to his power base.

I, for one, do not believe that America was designed to be governed by an aggressive, intolerant, Christian ideology. If we allow this kind of divisive tactic to split us, we as Americans will lose much of what is great about our country.