More on Gay Marriage:
President Bush unequivocally supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas said Thursday.
The White House has hedged on the president’s position on a constitutional ban on gay marriage. But Cornyn said that after a weekend discussion with Bush, he decided to have the Senate subcommittee on the Constitution that he leads begin considering such a proposal within weeks.
Observe the trial balloon in flight. Bush appears on Meet the Press on Sunday. Obvious question No. 17: “Do you or don’t you support a Constitutional Amendment banning Gay Marriage?” Public reaction to Rep. Cornyn’s pronouncement will help shape how Bush frames his response.
(Prediction: Reaction will be negative among moderates Bush needs to win, and positive among conservatives a Democrat can never win. Thus: “A: Well, it’s certainly a possibility, but we shouldn’t be too hasty in amending our great Constitution. I mean, it has worked awful good so far. Q: So you won’t rule it out? A: Well, I haven’t ruled anything out or in yet. It’s a big deal to amend the Constitution. It’s worth a sit-down and a think-through.”)
Well played.
Nope. To me this means an unequivocal endorsement of the FMA, with the only possible waffle, “We will wait to see the exact language” The WH has decided it is time.
The decision in Mass this week turned the trick.
The decision in Mass this week turned the trick.
You might be right, Bob.
You are half-right. Most political moderates and conservatives alike are opposed to redefining marriage as anything other than a man and a woman in which case there is nothing to lose amongst the moderate crowd in supporting this sort of constitutional amendment.
It will however energize the socially conservative base of the Republican Party as they have a chance to campaign on an issue that puts them dead center in the mainstream of social issues just as will happen in Michigan with the ban on racial preferences, which is also the centrist and conservative position.
It is really only Democrats who have anything to lose with an issue like this as they have to appease the social leftists of their party who either want this sort of radical and unwarranted redefinition of marriage or to abolish it entirely as a government-sanctioned institution (neither position of which is in the social mainstream) while at the same time trying to convince the American electorate who favors restrictions on abortion, opposes racial preferences, and supports executing murderers that they have not gone off on the fringe of the social issues spectrum.
Bush will not lose moderate votes over the FMA but his Democratic challenger could probably lose either leftist and/or moderate votes depending on who he chooses to alienate over the issue.
Or simply grabbing control of the agenda, moving the talk shows from WMD and comparative military records to gay marriage. And make the base smile and the Dems play defense for a while.
The campaign is officially on.
The only problem with that rant/fantasy, Thorley, is that all the evidence there is shows that the American public support gay marriage. Not overwhelmingly, though if you add in civil unions it’s a noticeable majority. But enough that it makes frothing tirades about how everyone’s siding with the bigots appear to be a little out of touch. Basically, Republicans can’t afford to let go of the bigots – the Christian right are their most secure supporters. So Republicans can’t afford to do the right/popular thing and just let go of DOMA.
But we’ll be seeing a Democrat President in the White House in January 2005, and unlike the present incumbent, none of them will need to pander to the Christian right.
I would like to see Dean help lead the fight against the federal marriage amendment if/when he loses. He’s been through this before. He knows what to do and say, better than any politician in Ameirca. He gets media coverage, he’s a familiar face, he’s got an organization, and he’s good at making both the moral argument and the states rights argument in clear language.
The Democratic party needs someone to show leadership on this issue, both for the sake of stopping this ridiculous amendment and to change the terms of the debate in our favor. It will not be the nominee if it’s Kerry or Edwards, and it will sure as hell not be Daschle. I don’t think Pelosi really has it in her either. Dean could help the party with this, but he could also help keep his supporters motivated and remain a strong voice in the party.
On the other hand, he’s been through this before. He may decide he and his family doesn’t need this s*** again, after the stress of the campaign. Things got plenty ugly in Vermont, and possibly dangerous. They’ll get much uglier on a national level, especially for such a recognizable figure. If I were Dr. Judy I might put my foot down, and if I were Dr. Dean, I don’t know what I’d do. But as a voter who does not want to see this awful thing pass or Bush to win by appealing to people’s worst instincts, I hope he gets involved.
Jesurgislac wrote:
Really and by “all the evidence” I assume of course you mean popularly enacted referendum in favor of redefining marriage to include same sex couples? Or perhaps you mean the rousing bipartisan defeat for DOMA or its veto by a Democratic President in the 1990s? Or maybe a plurality of States who jumped at the chance to redefine marriage?
Oh wait, I forgot, DOMA passed overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis and was signed into law by a Democratic President who made catering to homosexuals one of his first domestic priorities. And since it passed the democratically-elected legislatures of most States have promptly passed their own version of DOMA (ours will be the next one after the fall) to prevent the kind of nonsense the SCOMA is trying to force on the people of Massachusetts.
Face it, the issue is a political loser for Democrats which is why I hope Katherine gets her wish that someone in her party is idiotic enough to make championing her pet cause a priority and further increase the Republican majorities in both houses of Congress.*
TW
* While I support both DOMA and the FMA on their respective merits, my support is more for their pragmatic value in that they offer a winning issue to help elect more conservative candidates who are more likely to support entitlement reform, approve constructionist judicial nominees, and continue an assertive national defense policy (as well as hopefully doing something about spending). Besides which the political GLBT are by far more anti-liberty than social conservatives which means a win for the latter over the former on an issue, that is really only about privileges rather than “rights,” is also is a strategic victory on more important issues as well as a defense of the principles of self-government over judicial activism.
I’d also point out that Bush’s proposal will leave civil unions up to the individual states.
That’s going to piss off his conservative base, because it doesn’t go far enough to keep the gay influence out of our culture.
Civil unions will be fine with most Dems and Independents, I think. And it won’t hurt Kerry’s position, either.
But we’ll be seeing a Democrat President in the White House in January 2005, and unlike the present incumbent, none of them will need to pander to the Christian right.
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAhahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yeah, the last time something like this came up at the Federal level, the Democrats really stood tall, didn’t they? Hahahahaha. HAAAAAAAAAAhahahahahahahaha! Oh, please, please, make it stop, it burns!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
snort.
snicker.
HAAhahahahahaHHHAAAAAAhaha!
I’ll have what he’s having.
Seriously.
I support gay marriage. 100%. I think it’s a very basic question of human and civil rights. But if you really, really think that this is the moment the Democrats have been waiting for to take the driver’s seat on this issue, you are certifiable. Any Democrat standing for Federal office who doesn’t live in a district so gerrymandered that he’s assured victory doesn’t dare take the electoral risk. They didn’t on DOMA, and they won’t on this.
Not really, what it does do is provide a constitutional barrier to the sort of radical judicial activism we saw in Massachusetts which will satisfy most of his conservative base (and rightfully be seen as a “win”) while still leaving the Democrats in the same precarious position in that they have to oppose a more “moderate” Amendment or risk alienating the social loons who make up their base.
God knows it’s been all downhill for the Democratic party’s political fortunes since Dean started vocally opposing George W. Bush and the war in Iraq. And the Republican party’s extremist Congressional leadership has caused them to suffer defeat after defeat….
Oh wait.
(Is there an electoral downside to the presidential nominee taking up this issue? Sure. To any Democrat taking up this issue? That’s absurd.)
I am not going to discuss the merits with Thorley, whose post speaks for itself.
Someone on Kos says that John Lewis would be even better than Dean. They’re right, though I have no idea if he’s willing–his constituents are probably quite socially conservative. On the other hand, he opposed DOMA in ringing terms, and the fact that he’s not your stereotypical rich white atheist liberal from New York or Vermont is exactly why he’d be so great.
Lewis was one of the leaders of the SNCC. He was severely beaten during the infamous incident on the bridge at Selma. He can make the case better than any politician in America that this is a civil rights issue.
And Kerry is one of 14, I think, to vote against DOMA. He is more committed, I imagine than he would like to be.
I think the issue is simply going to be unavoidable. They are getting licenses in Mass, will carry those licenses to Alabama, and we will see you all in court this summer. God bless them, this is their year, and all us who would like to go hide will have to stand up and be counted.
And I think Republicans will be surprised. Pennsylvanians will have a ball thinking they are morally superior to Georgians.
“And, of course, no self-respecting gay person will be able to support president Bush if he wages war on the most basic civil right by the most devastating means possible: a constitutional amendment.” A Sullivan
What does this summer look like when Andy is out there every day saying Bush is right on the war, but bankrupting the country, and, well, just kinda evil on civil rights?
Yeah sure, Repubs slam dunk.
Bob, I believe 38 states have passed DOMA legislation and it is certainly an issue which will generate GOP support in the conservative christian community (alot of whom stayed away in 2000). I just don’t see how this issue is a winner for the dems in 04.
Besides which the political GLBT are by far more anti-liberty than social conservatives…
Unless, of course, you happen to be gay.
I suspect that the reaction among moderate voters would depend on how a proposed constitutional amendment was worded–if it just echoed DOMA (and was only sent to the states in the event that DOMA was ruled unconstitutional), it’s not going to be seen as unreasonable, and it will satisfy all but the most extreme opponents of gay marriage, since there are very few states actively seeking to allow gay marriage. If it goes beyond that and bans it altogether, that might be seen as heavy-handed, and it might not get enough support in the state legislatures to be ratified. We’ll have to see.
“I think the issue is simply going to be unavoidable. They are getting licenses in Mass, will carry those licenses to Alabama, and we will see you all in court this summer.”
California first, I think–lot more tame lefty judges out there to send the whole shebang on an express route to the USSC.
Besides which the political GLBT are by far more anti-liberty than social conservatives which means a win for the latter over the former on an issue, that is really only about privileges rather than “rights,” is also is a strategic victory on more important issues as well as a defense of the principles of self-government over judicial activism.
Take a deep breath, Thorley. That sounded almost hysterical.
Katherine’s right.
Katherine wrote:
Is that why Dean has been doing so well in the primaries after being projected earlier as the front runner for his supposed appeal to his party’s base for his opposition to liberating Iraq? 😉
Seriously though, this is almost as silly as Jesurgislac trying to claim that “all the evidence there is shows that the American public support gay marriage” in light of the overwhelming bipartisan passage of DOMA, its eager signature by a Democratic president, and the 38 States who passed their own DOMA legislation afterwards.
Republicans have much to gain by supporting the FMA because it (a) appeals to their own base and (b) represents the mainstream opinion of the majority of American citizens. Democrats on the other hand have a base which is out of touch with the mainstream on both this and numerous other issues in which case they will find themselves trying to find whichever position alienates the least people, even if it means offending their base in the process.
Bob McManus wrote:
Yes and here is an example of Kerry’s commitment on the issue:
Perhaps he can show his firm commitment by throwing a marriage license (probably someone else’s) over the capitol gates 😉
Being wretchedly unfair:
Republicans have much to gain by supporting the FMA because it (a) appeals to their own base and (b) represents the mainstream opinion of the majority of American citizens.
So tyranny of the majority is OK as long as it’s a mainstream majority?
Sorry but there is nothing tyrannical about the issue at hand. Privileges can and are awarded to some persons or groups but not others without violating the rights of those who do not receive them. The fact that he majority of society rightfully sees a social benefit in encouraging marriage for numerous reasons and decides to encourage it by creating default provisions of the marital contract (e.g. inheritance, medical decisions, child custody, etc) is in no way is a violation of the rights of others who might have to take the time to draft a will or set up those own arrangements on their own.
This thread is almost dead, I’m sure, but on the off chance it’s still kicking…
Sorry but there is nothing tyrannical about the issue at hand.
Sorry, but there is. A majority of people are seeking to deny the rights of marriage to a protected class; that’s almost a textbook case of “tyranny of the majority”.
The fact that he majority of society rightfully sees a social benefit in encouraging marriage for numerous reasons and decides to encourage it by creating default provisions of the marital contract (e.g. inheritance, medical decisions, child custody, etc) is in no way is a violation of the rights of others who might have to take the time to draft a will or set up those own arrangements on their own.
I’d like to ask you a few quick questions, if you wouldn’t mind, to better understand your position:
1) Do you regard marriage as a civil liberty? If, for example, legislation were passed that removed the recognition of your marriage within the eyes of the Unites States — though not, of course, within the eyes of your church — would you feel yourself deprived of a liberty?
1′) If so, on what grounds do you deny that liberty to others?
2) You seem to be arguing that marriage needs to be incentivized for it to be encouraged. Do you actually know anyone whose decision to marry or not was meaningfully impacted by the incentives placed in the state’s recognition of the marriage contract?
[As it happens I do not, nor do I know of any such cases; and I’ll wager that, though some must exist, the number of such cases is vanishingly small.]
3) If society “rightfully sees a social benefit in encouraging marriage”, on what grounds does society rightfully see a social benefit in denying marriage to a class of people? And what metric of “righteousness” are you using here?
Finally, the perennial question:
4) If I were to strike out the (implicit) word “homosexual” from your argument and replace it with the word “black”, your argument would be clearly recognized as invalid within the United States. [In fact, it’s an almost verbatim transcription of the some of the justifications for miscegenation laws.] On what principle of jurisprudence do you distinguish between the two?