Prohibition Version 2.0

Before trying to pass number 28, shouldn't we give a second thought to numbers 18 and 21? Constitutional amendments, that is. The 18th Amendment prohibited the sale of alcohol in these United States, while the 21st repealed that Prohibition. Clearly it is possible for us to go off half-cocked in the constitutional amendment department, so let's give this whole Strategic Marriage Defense Initiaitive (SMDI) a second look, hmm?

Take Prohibition. At least its proponents could make the case that alcohol abuse was (and is) a concrete problem, with concrete consequences. Habitual drunks have a greater propensity than the rest of us for beating up their spouses and killing people when they get intoxicatedly behind the wheel of a car. Nevertheless, we decided to repeal prohibition. A lot of reasons went into that decision, but surely the fact that it infringed the liberty of responsible drinkers was a consideration.

Now take the SMDI. Its proponents claim that gay marriage would be a threat to heterosexual marriage. None of them have done a very good job explaining that threat, however. Sure, they say it's against thousands of years of tradition, or against what they conceive to be God's will, but what does that have to do with law-making in the United States? Treating women as chattle, keeping slaves, and denying the vote to large swathes of the population were also long-standing traditions, and nobody (fortunately) is campaigning to bring them back. And that little old First Amendment Establishment Clause frowns on the whole enterprise of Divinely inspired legislation.

Even if tradition and religion were sound bases for lawmaking, the case has still not been made that gay marriage would be a threat to straight marriage. And it would be hard to argue that gay marriage could possibly constitute as much of a threat to straight marriage as, say, alcohol abuse. But we already repealed Prohibition.

So why don't we save ourselves a lot of trouble and agree to let our fellow Americans live, be free, and pursue happiness as they think best. Maybe we could even take the time that we would have spent arguing about a constitutional amendment and spend it instead with our loved ones and families?