A MORE PERFECT UNION GAY MARRIAGE BAN VIOLATES FOUNDERS' VISION OF AMERICA.

Byline: Gerald Plessner Local View

THE United States has begun the first divisive public debate of the 21st century. Religious leaders, conservative politicians and their families are gathering to push for a constitutional amendment that will define marriage as being between one man and one woman. President George W. Bush, eager to get to the head of the parade before it passes him by, has endorsed the proposed amendment.

Although the present anguish comes almost exclusively from the right, the left will surely become vocal in the months ahead, responding to another wedge issue destined to pull Americans apart. You can almost hear the fund-raising printing presses on both sides running at full speed.

Let's all catch our breath for a moment and think about some basic issues.

I understand the beliefs and feelings of those who oppose same-sex marriage and am aware of the Jewish, Christian and Muslim doctrines which condemn homosexuality. But I am troubled by two issues.

Those who would prohibit such unions describe their proposal as being in ``defense of marriage.'' But how does the desire of two people of the same sex to formalize their relationship present a threat to anyone else's marriage? Does it aggravate the divorce rate? Does it cause spouse abuse? Does it cause out-of-wedlock pregnancy or abortions?

Of course not.

Many people may consider such unions sacrilegious. They may be deeply offended by the idea. But as our debate over a flag-burning amendment teaches us, there is no right to be free from offense. On the contrary, our Constitution protects the right to act and speak at the risk of offending others.

And although marriage law allows for both the religious sanctification and legal protection of marriage, if you want to be married only by a minister of religion, that is your privilege. If you only wish to have your marriage confirmed by law, you are free to go to the courthouse. And if you desire neither, you can enter a common-law marriage which, over time, earns some legal protections.

The only laws which tell religions whom they can or cannot marry exist for reasons of health or abuse, such as the marriage of people too closely related by blood and the legal problems of issues like inheritance in cases of bigamy.

American history is a journey from limited rights to greater rights. When our Founders wrote the Constitution, they were not concerned about defining marriage, which in those days gave almost no rights to women. (Given that the word didn't exist at that time, one wonders what the Founders might have thought about homosexuality - especially Franklin and Jefferson, who spent so much time in France.)

What is most troubling about the proposed amendment is that it is a step backward in our march toward greater freedom. It would deny a freedom to a minority because that freedom offends the majority.

Many minorities had limited rights when the Constitution was written. African-Americans were slaves. Men without property couldn't vote. Women couldn't vote and were limited in educational and business opportunities. All that discrimination against classes of people has been swept away by enlightenment and the interpretation of our Constitution, a process provided by the Founders.

That is why being a gay man or lesbian is no different from other minorities who have faced institutional discrimination.

We have to go back to Jim Crow days to find such prejudicial legal sanctions. The majority found African-Americans offensive, unqualified and undeserving of equality, so they passed all sorts of laws limiting the rights of former slaves and their descendants.

That history is an embarrassment we should not revisit. We should remember that slavery and Jim Crow were condoned by most major religions, and to their shame. During the Civil War, members of both Christian and Jewish clergy supported the Confederacy, which at its core was about defending the rights of states to permit slavery. Some major religions had doctrines that stated a belief in the mental inferiority of nonwhites. Many churches were rigidly segregated well into the 1960s.

That's why the attacks by religious leaders on the rights of gay and lesbian adults are so troubling. And that's why the idea of a constitutional amendment to deny them the right to marry is, quite simply, un-American.