Throughout U.S. history, the Constitution has primarily been used to guarantee respect for the individual by the government. This fact is reflected in taking a cursory look through the amendments we’ve made, which mirror the evolution of our democracy — and in virtually every single case, freedom was increased.

President Bush’s election-year crusade to amend the Constitution against same-sex marriage flies against tradition by decreasing freedom, and it will backfire horribly.

Specifically, Bush hopes to add a quasi-lexical entry to the Constitution. Linguists understand, arguably better than anyone, the utter lunacy of trying to regulate language through government force. Language is the most mind-boggling, collectively produced, inherently human product in existence.

Language is produced democratically by more than six billion speakers, without government direction. The democracy of language is a 1,000-foot tidal wave that will swallow whole whatever stands in its way. It simply cannot be regulated. The grammar Nazis among us exert themselves trying to “change” everyone, but their efforts are fruitless, and they aren’t as clever as they think.

Supporters of Bush’s amendment push, who caricature themselves as proponents of “small government,” would argue that government coercion somehow has the power to dictate language, whereas try-hard grammar Nazis do not. Nobody would argue that the government can play a role in discouraging certain behaviors by threat of violence or imprisonment — but it is criminally stupid to believe that attitudes can be programmed through legislation. Nobody can force another person to enjoy a particular piece of music, bite of food or to respect another human being. Opinions can only be freely formed.

The same-sex marriage debate comes down to attitudes and not behavior. With or without government involvement, same-sex couples will continue to live together, share belongings, identify household responsibilities, etc. The question is whether or not millionaire politicians will “allow” the democracy of language to define marriage, as only it can.

They don’t really have a choice in the matter. Our evolving language is a reflection of our evolving sociocultural condition. Our concept of the word “marriage” just so happens to be one of the most rapidly evolving ones in our lexicon. The word has experienced a massive liberalization in the last century in tandem with our massive liberalization of the sociocultural condition. The two are inseparably linked.

Thus, Republicans are not simply trying to play Dr. Linguist with their push to amend, but they are trying to stop the democratic process of society defining itself.

The term “marriage” continues to ride that wave of democratic liberalization. Most seniors oppose same-sex marriage, that much is true. Middle-aged people generally oppose it, but young people are much more tolerant. This reality provides a look into the future: Same-sex marriage is inevitable. Imagine if your political party were responsible for amending the Constitution to prohibit women or blacks from voting. Go ahead, picture it. How would future generations view your party and its members?

The answer to that question is, quite simply, with contempt and ridicule. By the same token and with our unstoppable sociocultural liberalization, the future doesn’t look bright for Republicans if they persist in discriminating based on sexual orientation.

If Bush gets his way and the Constitution is amended, future generations will view the Republican Party and its members as the embodiment of absolute bigotry, thereby discrediting the GOP fully and without mercy.

So go ahead, Republicans — you self-proclaimed champions of small government: Let Bush take you on his linguistic march up Capitol Hill.

There is a 1,000-foot tidal wave approaching from the other side.