Proposed gay marriage ban is wrong

Aweek ago, I almost got a face full of fender when a car came close to running me over. I swerved my bike up on the sidewalk, nearly colliding with a card table that was set up there.

"Are you registered to vote?" an alarmed young woman said.

Sweating and shaken, I looked up at her. She sat behind the card table, which was draped with rainbow flags. I had pulled up on Pine and 13th streets, outside of Giovanni's Room, a bookstore in the heart of Philadelphia's Gayborhood. I realized her response was perfectly normal; with Bush's administration pushing the gay marriage amendment, it's more alarming to a gay rights activist that I may not be registered than that I was almost hit by a car.

On Sept. 30, the House defeated the advancement of the constitutional amendment in a 227-186 vote. Rep. Steny Hoyer was quoted by The Associated Press as saying, "The purpose in bringing this amendment ... just four weeks before the election, is to create the fodder for a demagogic political ad that appeals to voters' worst fears and prejudices."

Exactly who is President Bush trying to stimulate prejudices against to bolster his conservative support? In last week's presidential debate, Bush stressed, as he has so many times, that "you cannot lead if you send mixed messages. Mixed messages send the wrong signals to our troops. Mixed messages send the wrong signals to our allies." Yet in Tuesday night's vice presidential debate, a new mixed message popped up -- Vice President Cheney's response to the issue of gay marriage.

When asked about his feelings given the fact that his own daughter is openly gay, Cheney could only sheepishly say that, while he thought "people should be free to choose any arrangement they want," Bush still "sets the policy for this administration, and I support the president." That isn't the kind of rock-solid, unified administration Bush and Cheney have been touting themselves as. Bush just seems to be flouting a total lack of compassion, a lack of the basic principles of tolerance right in his own vice president's face. If Bush won't even listen to a dissenting opinion from his buddy Cheney, what chance does the average American have?

Consider the unknown number of homosexual soldiers (thanks to "don't ask, don't tell") serving in Iraq and Afghanistan since the beginning of our involvement. One of those soldiers helped in the high-risk, high-profile rescue of Jessica Lynch. The president derides Kerry for sending the troops mixed messages, yet his message to patriotic, brave and incidentally homosexual soldiers seems to be, "Lay down your lives to protect the American way of life, which actively excludes your way of life. Help me, and I'll do everything in my power to protect everyone's pursuit of happiness except yours."

What does banning gay marriage have to do with establishing justice or promoting the general welfare? By excluding groups of our citizens, are we a more perfect union? Does perfect mean homogenized? Bush has said, "A constitutional amendment should never be taken lightly -- yet to defend marriage, our nation has no other choice." Turning hatred and prejudice into votes is also not a "light" issue. Nor is it any lighter to equate a lifelong commitment between two people with an attack on the institution of marriage. Did Bush attack Iraq by punching himself in the face? Alas, only wishful thinking.

Though Kerry and Edwards both oppose gay marriage, they aren't touting a wildly irrational bid for an amendment to forward their political goals. As in many issues coming up in this election, Kerry merely represents the lesser of two evils, and with Bush's current lead in the polls, it's all we can hope for.

When John Edwards responded to the same question that was posed to Cheney, he made sure to praise the Cheneys for respecting and supporting their daughter, before decrying the amendment as pure political strategy. Cheney, so often called "pure evil," did not seem anything but purely sad when asked to respond to John Edwards. He chose not to defend the timing of the amendment vote in the House.

Cheney: "Well, Gwen, let me simply thank the senator for the kind words he said about my family and our daughter. I appreciate that very much."

Ifill: "That's it?"

Cheney: "That's it."

Remembering his demeanor, all that can be said is that dividing an administration, an army and a country over this social issue in this time of danger and crisis is disgusting.

That's it.

Jessica Lussenhop is a senior English major from St. Paul, Minn. Textual Revolution appears on Fridays.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.