What Do We Want the Constitution to Represent?

With Bush coming out today and declaring he definitely would support (meaning, "Give me a piece of paper and I'll sign it") a constitutional amendment to keep marriage as an institution strictly between a man and a woman, much of the talk has been emotive, about the issue of gays being able to marry.

Yet isn't the idea that we would change the Constitution even a bigger issue?

Do we really want to go on the world record, for the first time since the days of slavery, to change our constitution specifically to oppress a specific group of people? That's what this effort would do, if it passes.

I happened to speak today with at least a few people I know to be strongly-rooted Republicans when the issue came up, and all 3 people said while they oppose gay marriage because "it's just not right", they balk at amending the constitution to state this. This, for them, represents a much bigger step than allowing choice states to either offer or deny gays the right.

One said, "Well, thing is, I feel people should have a place where they could go, where it is legal. I just don't want it everywhere. So let the states decide for themselves."

There is also a rather popular misconception already brewing that Mr. Bush's idea would "sorta" allow civil unions. But it's my understanding from various news sources today that while Bush didn't attack civil unions today, any wording for such an amendment would prohibit anything approaching civil unions either.