A lot of talk goes on about the founders and what they saw our nation developing at it's birth. We constantly look for ways to show how the founders would have handled a modern issue based on the Constitution, the formal early acts of governement, and things they said and wrote during their lives.
One issue, the issue of gay marriage and civil unions isn't really covered in the Constitution. And it really wasn't an issue at all in colonial America. Where as it surely existed, writing about sex, especially gay sex, wasn't very common amongst the founders. And we really didn't have any treaties or court rulings involving gay citizens to refer to.
But we do have George Washsington. And where as Washington never, to my knowledge, spoke about same sex marriage per se, he had a deffinite attitude about people and rights.
Here's what George said...
"As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality."
Now take that statement into the current debate. does Washington essentially endorse homosexuals marrying the same as anyone else?
Well, no, not specifically. But I don'tthink it's even a stretch to say that Washington would be 100% on board where it comes to civil unions. In fact, if Washington were a politician today in the town that bears his name, he'd probably lead the charge. Or at least endorse the bill allowing same sex couples to have the same "protections of civil government" i.e. - civil unions, as a heterosexual couple. After all, they do, on the whole, certainly meet the other requirements set out by Washington.
I guess that would make Washington and any founder who felt the same the target of right wing pundits like Hannity, Coulter, Prager and Limbaugh. And the scurge of sermons by Falwell, Robertson, Schueller and the rest of their ilk.
I don't know whether Washington would quibble over the the terminology of "marriage" but I am pretty sure he wouldn't be trying to ban it either. After all, none of the rights that our founders put in the bill of rights banned anything. We didn't get that stupid until the 20th century when a bunch of misguided loons decided to ban booze via the Constitution. Fortunately, our representatives repealed that in short order after a decade or so of bootlegging and rampant crime replaced a rational system that could be regulated and taxed.