Pressed, inadvertently or intentionally, by his supporters on the Right and events in Massachussetts and San Francisco, Bush has declared his support for a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage.
Today, I call upon the Congress to promptly pass and to send to the states for ratification an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out as an election issue. Kerry and Edwards have been against gay marriage, but can they maneuver this into being a question of whether an Amendment is the right approach without the discussion sounding pedantic (and their potential gay supporters not getting torqued at the hemming and hawing)? After all, the DOMA was passed pretty substantially in Congress by both parties, and was signed into place by Clinton; we’re not talking about fringe politics here.
And, for what it’s worth, Bush wisely (or cleverly) left the door open to the states to make alternative arrangements (i.e., civil unions) if they choose, which is more than some of the proposed Amendments floating around were willing to do, and that’s actually seems to be what the mainstream population is willing to accept. How those unions, as contracts, would be respected in states without them will be interesting to see (as will whether steps of this sort will, as I’ve worried about before, marginalize marriage and make civil unions the norm, not the exception).
To a degree, though, this has to be considered an election issue, albeit one pushed forward by events. No Amendment is going to get passed this year. Hell, one might not get passed through an entire Bush second term.
So …
… clever election year tactic to pin down Bush’s opponents, either disarm them or force them to take an unpopular opinion during an election year?
… despicable pandering to the Religious Right?
… measured response to judicial activists and local civil disobedience?
… fear-mongering and wedge-driving?
… reflection of current popular opinion?
… radical extremism to amend the Constitution to forestall a given class of people sharing equal protection under the law?
… a middle course between centralism and federalism?
I’m in favor of gay marriage being legal. I’ve made that clear, and will continue to. I think this amendment is not in keeping with the principles of equality and equal protection, and reflects, at best, the ambivalence and apprehension that the American public feels about this issue. That they do feel that ambivalence and apprehension is troubling to me, and unfortunate, but it’s a reality.
How this proposal gets spun during an election year will be both entertaining and frustrating to see. I expect a lot of heat over a very narrow range of opinions, at least between the leading candidates (Nader notwithstanding).
Bush is triangulating. In fact, I see the quote as smacking the Religious Right, not affirming them. I also see the Vice President’s fingerprints on this. Bush echoed Cheney’s 2000 position influenced by his lesbian daughter, Mary. The Musgrave Amendment does not meet his criteria — despite protestations to the contrary. Here’s the language:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor 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.
The emphasized section in effect bans all civil unions, not just same-sex marriage. If Bush is smart, he will ask for specific language that allows for state legislatures to pass what they deem wise.
One thing that has impressed me about Bush is that he has remained remarkably consistent even under a continued assualt on him by the Religious Right. Friends of mine that have such inclinations are not very happy with him right now. This is not going to help. Again, it appears at least to me to not be a political calculus but a working out of the President’s core principles. Namely, heterosexual marriage should be protected but not at the expense of the civil rights of GLBT people. Whether such a compromise is doable or not is an open question, but this seems to be the President’s consistent via media.
See here to see that having a hard-line position on this would not be politically wise for the President or the Governor of California.
Watching CNN at lunch, the spin seems be:
On the latter, as outlined by Bush, the states would be allowed to decide what to do viz civil unions. If the legal analysis that a decision by Massachussetts to legalize gay marriage would require its recognition as marriage in the other states is correct (and that’s not just a fear of those opposed to the Mass. actions but a hope of those who support it), then states would not be allowed to decide.
As to “tinkering” with the Constitution for a “social” matter, arguably that’s been true for all but the most mechanical of Amendments. It’s arguably the case for I, XIII, XV, XVIII, XIX, XXI, and XXVI. It would have been true for the ERA, too.
And as to the “timing,” it doesn’t seem that the timing of this has been driven by the Administration.
I still think it’s a bad idea, but I’d rather see an arguments on the merits, not on the sound bites.
Andrew Sullivan is royally torqued (much to the glee of some who would otherwise not give him the time of day). I think what he’s saying has a lot of truth to it, all the more deeply so for him since he’s personally stigmatized by it.
That said, if he feels that Bush and GOP have declared war on him, then he has no allies among the Democratic front-runners, except in their lobbing a few token cruise missiles in righteous posturing over the Constitution thing (which criticism has merit to it, to be sure), but not (to extend the metaphor) supporting “statehood” for gay citizens in marriage, either due to personal conviction or for fear of the political consequences.
This may very well be the law of unintended consequences writ large. The political pros (e.g., Barney Frank and Barbara Boxer) were telling the folks in San Francisco, don’t do it! The more conservative and religious gays such as Andrew Sullivan wanted the greater legitimacy that marriage gives over civil unions. The result is the current conflagration. (I got this info from the inside.)
One way that this plays out is the gay rights movement gets set back decades. Andrew Sullivan may see George Bush as the enemy and Dave may see the Democrats as Andrew Sullivan’s non-ally, but it may end up that Andrew Sullivan’s enemy may be Andrew Sullivan and other conservative gays.
Someone I read recently said that gay rights and gay marriage were one of those “Whoever brings it up first loses” topics. If, relatively out of the blue, Bush had proposed this kind of an amendment (bearing in mind it’s softer than what Musgrave has been proposing), he’d have been seen as the aggressor. That’s how some will try to spin it, but I think most people will see it as a reaction to San Francisco in particular and (with less justification) Massachusetts. Those were the parties that raised the ante, that “brought it up first” in the public eye — righteously, perhaps, but also perhaps Pyrrhically.
I know it might be crazy to ask, but … why not civil union and religious marriage (these terms may vary, but you get the idea).
Am I the only one that thinks churches should want the control of religious ceremonies? That being married by church profesionals should allow the church some type of control over those unions (in a religous sense)? That signing your name to the documents so that you can be married in the sanctuary and then never going back to church could be grounds for revoking such a document?
And wouldn’t it be fairer for the government, an institution that all of us are part of, to have a document that covers the legal issues of professed life partnership only, not it’s cultural implications?
That makes sense to me. And I think, formally or informally (probably the latter) that’s where things will go. And the irony is that while it may strengthen the religious aspect of marriage, it will dilute it as an institution within society — the latter just the opposite of what the Religious Right would prefer.
Biggest issue will be forming the case law and moving the protections and obligations and other hasserei of marriage into these newfangled civil unions. That might be messy — it might let us clean up some old aspects of the former institution, but might also end up with some further problems in the short run.
What has struck me is the intensity of the emotion on this issue. There was the Andrew Sullivan blog entry and then the anger in Rush Limbaugh’s voice on the other side. Andrew Sullivan was using terms like enemy, war, and defending ourselves. Rush was using phrases like “you are going down”. Mark this date, everyone. It might be the start of the second American Civil War.
Lord, I hope not (not even in jest).
Not surprisingly, Kerry is blasting Bush for the proposal.
But in the in-passing comments I heard from him on the radio on the way home (while out on campaigning, an unprepared statement) he expressed disagreement with the amendment, but said that an amendment that provided for or allowed civil unions would be a “good amendment.”
I don’t suspect we’ll hear much of that sound bite.
Damian Penny sums up one of my sentiments about this:
I’m also getting a lot of heat for implying that people who oppose gay marriage are “hard right”, which isn’t really the case. Many moderate conservatives, and more than a few liberals, do not believe gays should have the right to marry. It’s a constitutional amendment prohibiting the practice that I have a problem with. It’s perfectly valid to believe gay marriage is an issue for legislators instead of courts – but if the constitution is changed, legislators (and voters) couldn’t allow gay marriage even if they wanted to.
The tide is clearly turning in favor of extending to gays and lesbians a right the rest of us have. If a majority of the people doesn’t support it now, that probably won’t be the case much longer. A constitutional amendment will ensure they never get this right, at least without going through the lengthy, painful process of revoking the amendment – and that’s why it’s “hard right”.
While my comment about the Civil War was hyperbolic, it was not meant in jest. Here are some commonalities:
1. Two sides with different but conflicting and deeply held moral visions.
2. One side on a moral crusade for the preservation of rights. The other attempting to protect a longstanding social institution.
3. A number of vain attempts to address the issues through the courts and legislature.
4. Demogogues everywhere.
A house divided against itself cannot stand. I echo Dave, Lord I hope not. I pray that the Lord will raise up people to enter the breach and fill the gap. I pray this knowing that the most common answer to such a prayer is yes, I am calling you.
It’s refreshing to see someone who doesn’t try and force their views down the eyes of the readers. Thank you Dave for being a proverbial island of calm.
🙂
When stupid comes to http://www.kusa.com/storyfull.aspx?storyid=24770 “target=”new”>town.
Al Sharpton (of all people, and strike me down for quoting him) commented in January:
Sharpton said that the Defense of Marriage Act should not have been approved, saying that allowing individual states to determine civil rights casts the country back to a pre-Civil War state.
“I am unilaterally opposed to any civil right being left up to state’s rights,” Sharpton said.
It is interesting that federalism seems to be a religion that folks get when they don’t like what the Feds are doing (or will be compelled to do). Bush, of course, has had previous support from various GOP federalist types, much to the dismay of some liberals. But …
For years we have been told that “State’s rights” is racist Republican code. Now it is simply responsible, sensible mainstream Democratic concealment. Can gay couples file Federal tax returns as “married”, or claim Social Security survivor benefits? It’s a state issue! And perhaps Tall John now favors the repeal of Roe v. Wade, so that states can resume their historic role as regulators of abortion rights. Perhaps he no longer sees a need for federal involvement in gun regulation. Perhaps I am a skeptic.
But not to worry. Does anyone really think that after some significant number of states have endorsed gay marriage, or civil unions, Sen. Kerry will champion the right of the hold-outs to stand in the way of progress? Of course not.
The ends and the means are not entirely separate, but it seems to me that for most folks (Right and Left), the ends are usually given primary consideration.