Illustration by Patricia Tompkins

Banning gay marriage is an embarrassment given the tenets grounded in our Constitution, offensive to our notions of an egalitarian society and is unacceptable given the ideals we claim to espouse.

Be that as it may, Congress, our would-be defender, intends to amend the Constitution in order to protect our marriages and ultimately protect us from (gasp!) homosexuality.

A Senate subcommittee led by Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., recently passed a measure aiming to ban same-sex marriage that may make the Senate floor next year.

Moreover, the decision comes on the heels of a Texas election in which 75 percent of the electorate approved an amendment to their constitution, making Texas the 19th state to pass such a ban on gay marriage.

And in Arizona, an amendment to the constitution will likely be on the November 2006 ballot. According to a recent poll by The Arizona Republic, 57 percent of Arizona voters would back an initiative defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

But while such measures enjoy popular support, they are only implemented to pre-empt the power of the judiciary and to deny a group of people its fundamental liberties.

Alan Eder columnist

These so-called defense of marriage acts do anything but defend marriage. They are not only constitutionally irreconcilable, but also socially reprehensible.

For these reasons, federal courts have and will find that these state laws and amendments run afoul of the Constitution.

In spring, a federal judge already struck down Nebraska's constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and civil unions. Justice Joseph Bataillon recognized that it was patently unconstitutional and grossly unfair in examination of the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment.

In effect, by barring homosexuals from marriage, we afford individuals one liberty but deny it to others solely based on a highly specific orientation. Marriage is a fundamental right that should be protected at all costs, even if it contravenes popular will.

Opponents of same-sex marriage erroneously maintain that because it is unnatural, legalizing it will make straight marriage less meaningful. But just as people kill people (not guns), homosexual marriage does not cheapen heterosexual marriage (heterosexuals do).

Revolving-door marriages make marriage less meaningful. Infidelity, high divorce rates and single-parent families already tarnish America's concept of the family and marriage. Jennifer Lopez's shifting landscape of husbands and Britney Spears' two-day jaunt hardly work to uphold the dignity of matrimony.

Which states have the highest divorce rates and highest rates of teen pregnancy? The American South - the most vocal proponents of gay marriage bans. Which state has the lowest divorce rate? That's right - you guessed it, Massachusetts, the home of gay marriage.

Opponents of same-sex marriage have staked a claim to the moral high ground, but they do not have a monopoly on morality. For all the talk of moral turpitude, they've certainly dropped the ball.

Frankly, it's disgusting the way we treat and stigmatize gays in this country. We treat gays as second-class citizens; we consign them to novelty status in popular culture (see "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy") but are unwilling to grant them a fundamental right. These people are more than just a pair of fabulous jeans; they are human beings.

Here, the great shipwreck that is American values crashes harshly on the rocks of irony and hypocrisy. We claim to be an open society but amend our own Constitution, the bedrock of freedom, to preclude others.

Banning gay marriage is blatantly discriminatory, plain and simple. We profess to be the land of the free and the home of the tolerant, but until gays are allowed to marry unequivocally, rhetoric of "defending marriage" rings hollow.

To quote Mark Twain in "Huckleberry Finn," "What's popular is not always right, and what's right is not always popular." This is about equal liberty and equal footing. As James Madison would recognize, this is about protecting the rights of a minority from the tyranny of the majority.

People's irrational fears of homosexuality should not be allowed to motivate a change in the Constitution and deny freedom to all. Indeed, gay rights are our civil rights battle of the 21st century, and with many diametrically opposed, we must be prepared to fight vehemently.

America can do one of two things: Stop purporting to be the land of fairness, or if this society is really premised on equality, then it is high time to grant gays the right to marry.

Alan Eder is a senior majoring in political science and Spanish.

He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.