The United States is a country challenged by many real problems afflicting real people -- a divisive war in Iraq, ever-mounting federal deficits, educational underachievement, threatened pensions and the higher cost of energy, to name just a few. But why worry about real problems when imaginary ones exist?

Conservative politicians across the country seem oblivious to that question, so busy are they trying to ban marriage for gays. Eighteen states have approved constitutional bans on the marriage of same-sex couples -- something that has zero effect on the sanctity of anyone else's marriage -- and the latest attempt will be Proposition 2, which is up for a vote in Texas today.

All this continues despite the fact that Massachusetts is the only state to have legalized such unions (Vermont and Connecticut allow civil unions) and the likelihood of other states being forced to recognize the same is virtually nil. For one thing, the federal Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1996 to block such a development. For another, so-called activist liberal judges aren't the ones President Bush is nominating to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the face of this unclear and un-present danger, yet another attempt is being made to amend the U.S. Constitution, no less, which in other respects exists to protect the rights of the people, not make one group the pariahs and scapegoats of other Americans' prejudices, even when they masquerade as morality.

On Wednesday, a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to consider a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution that stipulates marriage in the United States "shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman." Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, ever quick to tell people how they should live, is a sponsor and a hopeless case on this issue.

But his colleague, Sen. Arlen Specter, ought to know better, both as a moderate Republican and a constitutional scholar. To amend the Constitution in this frivolous way would be a travesty, and we call on Sen. Specter to be a voice of reason in the subcommittee (of which he is a member) and in the full Judiciary Committee (which he chairs).

For conservatives pushing this resolution and a companion effort in the House, the effort may not be about addressing a real problem but it is about the political benefits of symbolism. Their hypocrisy is stunning. Of course, the real threat to the sanctity of marriage is divorce, but you will not read of any amendment seeking to ban that -- and for good reason.

Unfortunately, the real symbolism at work here is about picking on the few to appease the many while neglecting the nation's real problems.