Bad timing, bad amendment

Society's attitudes toward homosexual behavior are changing, which is exactly why this is the wrong time to lock the U.S. Constitution into a federal definition of marriage.
Of course, the change in society's attitude toward homosexuality is the very reason that some people are committed to getting a defense of marriage amendment into the Constitution now. While society may change, they want to freeze the law of the land while they think they can.
And, of course, some politicians are keen on a marriage amendment because, well, they're politicians, and it serves their purposes to appeal to their conservative base.
This week, the U.S. Senate will again take up the proposed "Marriage Protection Amendment," which states: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any state, 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. & quot;
The broad language of this bill will affect not only the obvious targets, homosexuals, but will also affect couples -- old or young -- who are living together without benefit of matrimony.
What's moral?
A Pew Research poll in February asked respondents about a list of behaviors and whether they were morally acceptable, morally wrong or not a moral issue. Married people having affairs was found to be morally wrong by 88 percent of the people questioned. Only 7 percent thought it wasn't a moral issue. Fifty percent believed that homosexual behavior was morally wrong, and 33 percent thought it was not a moral issue.
Based on those numbers, if the Senate wants to engrave U.S. standards of moral behavior in the Constitution -- and defend marriage at the same time -- perhaps it should pursue an adultery amendment. That's not likely to happen because, whatever Americans may say about the wrongness of adultery, there are more adulterers in the nation (and in Congress) than there are homosexuals. Which just points out why legislating morality is such a tricky business. And why it should be avoided whenever possible.
Churches are free to define marriage as they see fit, to sanctify the marriages of those they choose and to hold marriage partners to their vows. But government should not adopt particular religious principles in a way that discriminates against people seeking legal recognition of their partnerships. The people of Saudi Arabia, Iran or Taliban-era Afghanistan have lived under laws defined by religious fundamentalists. Americans shouldn't.