So, good 'ol George W. is finally taking a stance on the gay marriage issue. Unfortunately, it's not a shocker that he has eventually bowed down to the desires of the Christian Coalition and its conservative voting base.

But, I find it ironic he wants to make a religiously-based amendment part of the same American document that enforces our separation of church and state.

It's perfectly fine if religions want to ban same-sex marriages. If the doctrine you believe in says only a man and a woman can be together, then you should be allowed to believe that. If you interpret your religious texts differently, maybe you should form your own religion on your own beliefs.

However, forcing your beliefs on others is wrong. Or, at least that's what they teach us in this country. Funny, then, that our president is trying to create an amendment that does just that -- and more. But first, let's look at how Bush is arguing the amendment.

"The union of a man and a woman," he says, "is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith." OK. Well, we already know that religion shouldn't be dictating the contents of the Constitution, so strike that out as being reasonable. That leads us to "enduring human institution;" or, as others have put it, "tradition."

Yes, tradition is a wonderful reason not to change. Here are some of my favorite "traditions" that lasted for, in some cases, thousands of years: Chinese foot binding and female circumcision. Sometimes, traditions are based on outdated and cruel beliefs that should be reconsidered.

Some say that allowing gay couples to marry cheapens the sanctity of marriage. If my neighbors are gay and marry, how does that in any way affect my parent's marriage, my future marriage or anyone's marriage? It doesn't. By banning same sex marriages, we are only affecting the lives of those gay couples who want to marry. If we want to protect the sanctity of marriage, why don't we start paying attention to the ridiculously high divorce rates (43 to 50 percent of marriages, depending on numbers) in this country? Our heterosexual couples can't seem to get it together, but we're more concerned about gay people who love each other.

Some may argue a gay household is not a satisfactory situation for a child to be raised in. They might bring up the often-skewed studies that children grow up "healthier" or "more stable" in homes with a father and mother.

First of all, allowing gay marriages is not the same as allowing gay couples to adopt. They are two separate issues, and it's unfair to combine them. Allowing gay marriages won't even begin the much-feared "slippery slope" toward gay couples adopting, because rational people realize there are rational differences between the two.

Along those same lines, if children are so adversely affected by growing up in households with both a male and female figure, why don't we forcibly remove the children from the 11.9 million single parents in this country? Surely, by keeping all children in foster homes and orphanages until they can find suitable, heterosexual parents, the crime in this country will plummet.

An amendment banning same-sex marriages is discrimination. By saying that John and Jane can marry, but Jane and Jane cannot is discriminating, no matter how you argue the issue or what "moral" beliefs you hold.

And it shouldn't be forgotten that not even a century ago, religion and "morality" were used as arguments for why blacks should be slaves; or later, why blacks and women couldn't vote. Really, religion and morality were excuses -- defense mechanisms, if you will -- to justify discrimination.

Writing Puritanical amendments has never gone over well in the past, and won't if it's voted in this time, either.