The Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist, voicing outrage that the Massachusetts Supreme Court legitimized gay marriage, says he'll push for an amendment to the Constitution outlawing marriage between two people of the same sex. He insists that the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution would require that other states recognize gay marriage and that therefore all states will have to recognize gay marriage.

That the full faith and credit clause would cause a cascade of gay marriage throughout the land is not necessarily the case. Already the Defense of Marriage Act already bans gay marriage at the federal level. Personally, I would prefer a federalist state-by-state solution over a long period. Let the states decide. Fine by me. But an amendment to the Constitution would trump all that.

Let me be clear. I can certainly understand that the idea of marriage between two people of the same sex would be abhorrent to some. But the amendment would go much farther than outlawing such marriage. It would outlaw any and all civil protections for such unions, creating an apartheid existence for gays in terms of their relationships. It is not enough for the social right to outlaw marriage for gays as such but to stigmatize them to such a degree that they will have no chance of having socially sanctioned protections of any kind for their relationships.

I wrote earlier:

. . . what pains me most is that the Democrats are more enlightened on some social issues than the far Right yet the liberal party cannot be trusted with prosecuting the war of civilization against barbarism. I guess I have become a single- issue voter. Not a good place for a citizen. I wish I could say I'm an unabashed supporter of Bush but given the extreme peril we continue to be in, and the surety our enemies will not stop to try to attack us, or attack us, until they are destroyed and democracy begins to take root in the Middle East, I have no choice but to endorse him.

But I did not say what would happen if Bush himself actually went through with supporting such an amendment. I was referring to his suggestion that he would do so when he mentioned it during his State of the Union address and that I would roll the dice and vote for him, hoping he would not push for an amendment between now and November.

I have had to think about this and now I'm not so sure. I have to realize that Bush is a man of his word on serious issues, beyond what politics he and every politician plays, and I have admired him for sticking to his convictions and following through, something to admire in a leader—that is, if he does the right thing. So why should I doubt he will follow through with supporting an amendment outlawing gay marriage and all civil protections that currently exist for gay couples?

If Bush does actively support passage of the amendment, while the Senate Majority Leader gives the rallying cry, I will have to abstain from voting in the presidential election. I will not partake in my own stigmatization.

I hope Bush doesn't go for it. I certainly don't want to vote Democrat. Both the Democrats and the social right sicken me. One does not believe in America's fight against fascism that threatens the world and the other wants to write gays completely out of America's Constitution.

It's only February and already the year grows dark.