Same-sex marriage. In light of the reactions some people have to this term, and the attention it has gathered on Capitol Hill, one might think gays and lesbians were the foot soldiers of an international terrorist plot. Or they might think same-sex marriage to be the most diabolical plot since fluoridated water and flu vaccines.

Alas, it amounts to nothing more than homophobic politicians in Washington that, at a time of national crisis, cannot seem to come up with anything better to do than attempt a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

The best reason I have gathered in support of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage is that Bush simply does not like it.

According to www.whitehouse.gov, he states that “some activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage.” He goes on to say that, “After … millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization.”

Without using what any college-educated person would call an argument, Bush suggests that the collapse of Western civilization would happen if gays and lesbians were allowed to marry each other.

How soon Bush forgets that it was a few “activist judges” that drew the reigns in on segregation and “millennia of human experience” in oppressing people different from the majority.

In spite of such flawed rhetoric, two reasons stand out above all others in this debate as to why same-sex marriage should be allowed in a free society: the principle of church/state separation and our inalienable rights to make contracts with those with whom we share resources.

Firstly, being a supposedly religious man, one would think Bush would be the first person to condemn what effectively amounts to government involvement in what has, “After … millennia of human experience” been the sole domain of religion: the joining of two people in holy matrimony.

Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik probably said it best when he said, “Politicians don’t get to decide whose baby can get baptized, who can receive Holy Communion or who can get bar mitzvahed — and they shouldn’t get to decide who gets married, either.” So what a same-sex marriage ban effectively amounts to is the most dangerous marriage of all — that between church and state.

Secondly, a fact that is oft overlooked in this debate is that marriage has evolved over the centuries, from a simple ceremony officiated by a religious figure and recognized by the community to a legally binding contract between two persons, officiated and recognized by the state. The state has succeeded in taking God and religion out of the equation completely, so why is it now that such factors come back into play?

Gay and lesbian relationships have evolved alongside these changes to the point that lesbian and gay couples now adopt children, raise families, share resources and plan retirements together. Although some might like to ban such relationships (perhaps under the guise of a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriages), the fact is that they exist and will not go away.

Prohibiting such couples from forming contracts to protect their interests, amounts to no less than state-sponsored discrimination, no different than laws that prohibited blacks from marrying in the 1860s.

It is fear, and not reason, that is behind the anti-same-sex marriage movement.

If Democrats and Republicans want to push for a ban on same-sex marriage, then they may as well stop pretending that they are the defenders of a free society.

I do not fear two people that love each other joining in a contract to protect their mutual interests so much as I fear tyrants that seek to deprive those they disagree with the most fundamental blessings of liberty.