Constitution deserves more respect than it's been getting

Backers of the movement to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage and civil unions suffered a well deserved defeat in the Senate this week.
The issue of gay marriage and civil unions is one that is evolving, and evolving in different ways in different states. The proponents of a constitutional amendment sought -- and will continue to seek -- to use the biggest gun in the arsenal of American jurisprudence to short-circuit debate on the issue.
There are those who say that the Federal Marriage Amendment would have only defined the institution of marriage, that it would not have banned civil unions between two people of the same sex. But they are being disingenuous.
Language is clear
The language of the proposed amendment would state that marriage within the United States "shall consist only of a man and a woman." But it went further than that, adding that no federal court ruling or even an article in any state constitution "shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman." The emphasis is ours.
As such, the amendment would be the first since Prohibition to specifically remove the right of individuals to go about their daily lives. And unlike Prohibition, which at least applied to everyone, this amendment would affect only a specific minority, homosexuals.
That is an enormous step to take in the heat of the moment.
By a vote of 50-48, the senators present for a procedural vote on a motion to bring the amendment to a full vote rejected it. Sixty votes would have been needed for the motion to pass. Sixty-seven votes are needed to approve an amendment.
Under normal circumstances, the Senate leadership would have been expected not to pursue a vote that it knew it would lose.
That it didn't in this case suggests that some members of the Senate were playing presidential politics with the issue.
Playing political card
While polls show that most Americans oppose gay marriage, they also show most Americans oppose a constitutional amendment banning it. But gay marriage is an issue that galvanizes social conservatives, and Republicans are eager to draw more of those voters to the polls this November.
The Constitution deserves better than to be trivialized in show-vote on an amendment. It deserves better than to be trotted out for amendments -- the gay marriage issue is not the first -- every time a political faction wants to dramatize the difference between us and them.
Amending the Constitution is a serious matter and deserves to be treated as such, not as just another play in a game of political football.