Word is that Bush will today back a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a heterosexual-only institution, at least so far as the Federal Government is concerned (and as it impacts the states if/when other states make it legal).
Stupid, stupid, stupid …
Not necessarily politically stupid. Middle America is still pretty conflicted over the issue, and the idea that the courts are (rightfully, but impolitically) forcing the issue before they’re ready for it. By staking out this position, Bush forces Kerry to either “me too” (alienating some liberal activists) or run against such an amendment (alienating some moderates) — or try to weasel around with separate-but-sorta-equal civil unions (alienating both liberals and moderates).
No, it’s stupid because … well, because I think it’s an awful idea.
Bush signaled the direction of his thinking in last month’s State of the Union address, where he stopped just short of endorsing an amendment but said the nation “must defend the sacrament of marriage.”
If the President had said that the nation “must defend the sacrament of communion” or “must defend the sacrament of baptism” or “must defend the sacrament of holy orders,” he’d have been hooted off the stage. We don’t write constitutional amendments to defend religious institutions — except from governmental interference.
I’ve nattered on about this subject at length, so no need to repeat myself. But … hrm. For all the uncertainty over this issue in the electorate, a lot of it is, I think, due to it being new and unfamiliar. If it becomes a national debate, it’s altogether likely that the shock of having to address it may give way to reasoned and familiar acceptance. In which case, it could backfire on Bush.
And, for what it’s worth, there are a lot of folks who disagree with Bush on a number of social issues, but have been willing to put them aside because of geopolitical issues (ahem). By bringing the focus back to social stuff, the Bush team may make that compromise a lot more difficult to maintain.
I am so glad, that from my position, I get to look at it as a more-of-the-same issue.
Upon consideration, I’ll go further. Government recognition of sacraments is spotty at best — pretty much limited to recognition of religious orders (though defined pretty much however one wants — see mail-order ministries). That the government feels it necessary to recognize and define the sacrament of marriage seems archaic in that fashion (as much as if the government wanted to dictate who was actually baptized or confirmed or shriven of their sins in the confessional).
So maybe the alternative is simply to get the government out of the marriage business altogether, and only have civil unions as a contractual foundation for social groups — thus open to any sort of grouping people want to commit themselves to.
Is that was conservatives really want here?
One of the things that the Conservatives want is to get rid of is the Western (in the sense of the Mountain States) tradition of Common Law marriages (one of the things to be overturned by the stupid Musgrave amendment). They would also be overjoyed in taking the Israeli approach of only having “Certain” people being allowed to marry by having “Church” approved marriages only.
Getting rid of civil marriage all together would be a dream of some on the right. They would still want to keep all of the Benefits (or more if they can get them), all the while denying the same rights to others.
None of the old laws would be overturned, and anytime someone tries to go around the Amendment using contract law, the offenders would be arrested for violating the new amendment.
Best of both worlds really. Getting to keep all of your rights, and tossing those who offend you in jail.
Also…
If the act of “Marriage” is Sacred, does that only apply to the Judeo-Christian (non-Mormon) definition or are all religions going to be given the right to marry people as they’re traditions see fit. Let’s take a look.
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
Opps. Sorry. No soup for you.
Only the Judeo-Christian (non-Mormon) tradition of view is going to be approved by the Government. No Heinleinian visions of group marriage in our future, that’s for sure.
Remember…
“All Animals are equal, but some Animals are more equal then others”
The majority of Protestant churches (and IIRC Methodist churches) do not view marriage as a sacrament. By imputing the nomenclature on this distorts the debate (see the comment above concerning abolishing civil marriages even though I know of no one advocating this).
I’ve been tracking this and what appears to be going on is that Bush is being pushed into it by overreaching by the other side. You will recall from last summer, Bush said he would support the amendment only if he thought it necessary. The Religous Right was critical of him when his “support” of this was less than enthusiastic as recently as last October. Given the recent events in Massachussetts, Bush appears to believe it is now necessary. If I was president, this still would not be enough. My line would be if there is an attempt to impose Massachussetts on other states through the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution.
The importation of religion to this only serves to cloudy the issue. The real question is this: Is there a compelling state interest with respect to the institution of the family? If so,what does it mean with respect to public policy ? The President has definite ideas concerning this, but it has nothing to do with the fact that some Christians view marriage as a sacrament. Rather, he believes (rightly or wrongly) that the traditional view of marriage and family benefits society-as-a-whole more than the alternatives being presented. As such, traditional marriage should be accorded greater privileges and protections.
Where the President and I differ is whether this is a compelling (small-s) state interest or a compelling Federal interest. Thus, I would craft an amendment that would make the full faith and credit clause non-applicable to the issue of marriage. States that want to approve of same-sex marriage can recognize ex post facto “marriages” that occur in none-recognizing states and the non-recognizing states are not forced to recognize the other way arround.
As for the fact that the proposed amendment not allowing for polyamory: One of the conditions of Utah entering the Union was that polygamy was banned.
Unfortunately, though perhaps technically most Protestant churches don’t consider marriage to be a sacrament in the technical/theological sense, the language has been introduced to the debate by the President and others who toss around words like “sacrament” and “sacred” and “holy.” If the debate is to be on the civic merits, let’s see it argued on that basis.
While I don’t think it’s the intent of most supporters of the FMA, Stan’s examples demonstrate how the language could be used with far broader consequences. That’s the danger of broad-stroke amendments like this (and some others, dating back to the founding of the republic) — being open to interpretation makes for (“shudder”) judicial activism.
As to Utah — I suspect that such a deal would be a lot more difficult to swing (so to speak) these days.
Rich.
Without the Full Faith and Credit clause we are going back to a position before the Loving decision.
Frankly, this is an attempt by the Shrub to coddle his Religious Right supporters, who feel he hasn’t done enough on their behalf.
However, he therefore threatens the very fiber of the nation by creating a class of second-rate citizens: anyone who is NOT Christian, as he defines it. I’m Pagan, and was wed by a Humanist. I am legally authorized to perform weddings in several eastern states. Many people I know were wed in civil ceremonies — it’s not a sacrament to them, since sacrament, as the Shrub uses the word, is a religious term.
This will gain a lot of air play; it also reeks of rampant homophobia, if you ask me. How long before we’re marching again in DC by the millions for equal rights and justice for all?
I often say we’re a hair’s breadth away from the Republic of Gilead, and things like this only reinforce it.
Okay, to put a reality check on it, we are, perhaps, a hair’s breadth away from, say, 1980 or so, give or take a decade. The whole idea of nationally recognized gay marriage, not to mention the striking down of anti-sodomy laws, companies recognizing domestic partnerships, etc., was pretty much a pipe dream then, except among a limited group of activists. That’s not to say that’s a good thing or a good place to be, by any means, but it’s also not a sign that Theocracy is Right Around the Corner.
After all, if Bush needs to “coddle his Religious Right supporters,” that’s a sign that they aren’t getting already and automatically what they want, right?
Beyond that, the FMA doesn’t, per se, address things in a Christian vs. non-Christian fashion. That its supporters sometimes couch their arguments in that fashion is telling, but that doesn’t mean that anyone not a Christian becomes a second-class citizen under the FMA — only gays.
For those who want to know more about the Loving decision, see here. Bottom line is that the Supremes ruled the Full Faith & Credit clause required Virginia to recognize an interracial marriage performed in DC, despite its state miscegenation laws.
Of course, the point here is to create a bypass to the Full Faith & Credit clause, explicitly for marriage. (The bill, as written above, may do more than that, but to simplify the point …) That’s certainly legal, even though I think it’s undesirable. The point of a Constitutional Amendment, after all, is to amend the Constitution.
Note the press confernce here. My take is that Bush HASN’T changed his position. Namely, he sees the constitutional amendment as a future option only if judicial activism is unchecked. When the press secretary was asked the trigger question he alluded to the fact that the trigger condition hasn’t happened yet. He also appears to beleive the current federal DOMA is sufficient to deal with the full faith and credit issue. The fact that the federal DOMA has been on the books since 1996 indicates that the President may be right that it is unnecessary to amend the constitution with respect to full faith and credit.
At the center of it is Bush’s insistence on the vox populi. Thus, what is happening in the Massachussetts legislature will probably appease Bush and I predict he won’t pull the trigger. It is not gay marriage per se that worries the President but gay marriage imposed by activist judges. I regret that I got sucked in here before checking all the facts. Bush hasn’t changed his position on this and I should have been skeptical that he had changed without verifying the facts.
Woo-Hoo! You go http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20040212/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_calif_10 “target=”new”>girls! (sorry, Women…)
Rich, I do note that McClellan did refer to “marriage is a sacred institution” and “defend the sanctity of marriage” some more, though. Almost like a mantra. (Though, to be fair, he’d said his two sentence answer on the questions and was being repeatedly asked for information outside that answer).
My feeling on vox populi is mixed. On the one hand, I think it’s an incredibly important principle. On the other hand, one reason we have a constitution in the first place is because we want to make it difficult (via judges) for the vox populi to override basic principles and rights by short-term legislation.
That, of course, then gets back to a constitutional amendment, which is the system’s way of allowing for vox populi to change (or reestablish) those basic principles and rights in a difficult but definitive fashion. I think that would be a real mistake here, but …
I disagree that It is not gay marriage per se that worries the President but gay marriage imposed by activist judges. I find the “activist judge” argument to be problematic anyway, since judicial activism seems to be fine with most people (even the Right) when it acts in a fashion it approves of. But I think Bush is sincerely troubled with the whole concept (and recognizes, politically, that many others are as well).
What the President realizes that many of his supporters don’t get is the radical nature of a constitutional amendment. So, he looks for solutions that are short of this. An amendment is a last resort rather than a first resort and the fact it takes a long time to pass one is a good thing and not a bad thing. An example of a knee-jerk amendment was the 25th amendment. Here the Republicans sought to stick it to Roosevelt when he was dead because they couldn’t when he was alive. There is always the law of unintended consequences and the damage a bad amendment can take can be profound. I regret voting for TABOR and I instinctively now vote no on any constitutional amendment on the Colorado ballot.
I tend to shy away from constitutional amendments, particularly ones that enshrine some sort of mechanic or schema (usually around funding, taxing, disbursement, or all of the above), largely because they are difficult to roll back.
That, of course, is why folks usually frame them as such, since it means that you won’t have legislators simply passing laws counter-acting them. The answer to that seems to be to vote in better legislators, but it usually seems that party affiliation is more important than representational quality when it comes to voting for state legislators, at least in this state.