Let’s see. George W. Bush backs an amendment to the Federal constitution that would ban recognition of gay marriage on a federal level, but would allow states to define other arrangements, such as civil unions.
John Kerry now backs an amendment to the Massachusetts state constitution, that would ban gay marriage in the state, but would define another arrangement, such as civil unions.
Bush is called a desperate, divisive homophobe who’s pandering to the Theocratic Right. Kerry, so far as I can tell, isn’t.
Not quite sure why, though I think they’re both wrong with this policy.
49 view(s)
They certainly are wrong. Perhaps the difference in reaction lies in the balance of power: Kerry has none, so he’s only politicking; Bush is President and has the power to start the process of amending the Constitution right now. Instead of politicking, he could be seen as making policy.
So Bush should be criticized because he’s actually doing something, instead of simply posturing about it?
I think they’re both pandering, in different ways. Bush to the Christian right, and Kerry to some uncomfortable swing voter who supposedly can’t be appealed to that this is an issue of equal treatment under the law. Bush as President does have a lot more influence, but he knows it won’t pass – which makes his stance all the worse, I think. It appeases the base without the backlash.
I don’t like Kerry at all, and I think the Dems’ “we are against gay marriage, won’t say why, and still don’t like a Federal constitutional amendment, although a state one might be OK” position is the worst kind of mealy-mouthed fence-sitting. They could win this fight if they just grew a backbone and said to the public, “We support equal treatment of all citizens under the law. The President doesn’t.” Full stop.
It would certainly be a persuasive argument.
While I think it’s accepted wisdom that Bush is pandering to the Christian Right, I think he does so (and has done so) with an eye toward the Middle. There are a lot of folks who are conflicted, resistant, or downright hostile to the idea of gay marriage, mostly (I believe) because the concept has suddenly come to the forefront of the public conscience very quickly, and largely through fiat. That’s the same group that Kerry (and Edwards) is trying not to alienate, since the election cannot be won without them.
(Insert here obligatory disclaimer that I have no idea what any of these guys really believe. No, strike that — I’m pretty certain that Bush, himself, is personally opposed to gay marriage.)
To my mind, a true leader would try to bring that middle body out of their reactionary shell and, as you say, try to teach them that this is a matter of equality. That’s certainly riskier, especially in an election year.
I’m not convinced that Bush’s actions here are any worse than Kerry’s, though I agree that, as president, he should be expected to be a better leader.
In addition to this being about equal treatment, it’s also about the difference between civil and religious marriage, something else no one has the balls to talk about. I wrote up some talking points on it a while back: The Party Line.
A good write-up, Adam, and in keeping with my own feelings on the subject.
In many ways, this debate is forcing the body politic to look at what our current marriage laws represent. That we have recognized a purely civil, non-religious basis for marriage (and tolerate religious mockeries of it as well, cf. various wedding chapels in Vegas) indicates that society is willing to deal with marriage as something less than a sacrament and sacred institution. We “merely” need to adjust our frame of reference to see that civil recognition of gay marriages is really not a stretch, and is no more likely to “weaken” or “desecrate” the institution than has already been done.
The reaction over gay marriage is, perhaps, the backlash of the cognitive dissonance between what we societally think marriage should be, and what it actually is.
Bush does not pander to the middle any longer — his rhetoric is straight to the hard right.
I disagree. Looking at the speech where he came out for an FMA, for example, it’s clear he’s at least playing up the message of fairness alongside tradition, calling for calm discussion, and firmly leaving the door open for states to adopt civil union laws should they choose. An appeal “straight to the hard right” wouldn’t have included any of those, but would have mentioned God a lot more, denounced the culture warfare of the Left, and blocked civil unions as well as marriage.
I suppose it depends on where your definition of the “hard right” is. But, regardless of how he actual feels, it would be political suicide for Bush to pander straight to the hard right, no less than it would be for Kerry to pander straight to the hard left.
I find the whole concept of trying to enshrine a particular view of morality into the US constitution to be distasteful in the extreme. Have we not learned our lesson with prohibition?
At the risk of sounding argumentative, there are any number of values enshrined in the Constitution. The idea of slavery being wrong, the idea of not having a state religion, the idea of valuing diverse expression of opinion, the idea that women ought to be able to vote. Are those expressions of “morality”? “Philosophy”?
That said, I agree that this particular view of morality is ill-advised for enshrinement.
Well, Dave…
Except for the fact the the FMA does not allow for the States to grant civil unions. as has been discussed before. It’s the typical bush tactic of bait and switch.
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.
As too the continuing disappointment of Kerry and his positions on not dealing with the deficit, getting rid of NAFTA (or getting rid of the most egregious bits), and dumping most of the tax cuts to do so…sigh.
But, a person from the right wing of the Democratic party is still better then someone from the right wing of the Republican party.
That’s the FMA text as specifically drafted by Musgrave; though Bush previously indicated he could support that bill, in his call to Congress earlier this week he did not refer to any particular text. He specified only the following (emphasis mine) about it:
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.
Now, you can assume it’s double-talk on his part, or that it’s a refinement (or clarification) of this thinking on the matter, or that it’s a recognition that the state legislatures aren’t nearly as likely to approve of something that ties their hands specifically, but that’s what’s basically on the table.
I’m generally inclined to agree with your wings comment. Generally.
True, the values Dave mentioned are part of the constitution but then they are the ones that remove inconsistencies with the “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” foundation. Let’s face it, being forced to adhere to a particular religion, being unable to vote because you are female, or being a slave pretty much contradicts that fundamental statement.
The “values” I have issue making an appearance in the constitution are ones that do not protect any citizen’s life, liberty or pursuit of happiness. The fact that someone “marries” a partner of the same sex poses no threat to anyone else’s liberties (except of course the liberty to discriminate), but oulawing it sure does.
Every argument I have seen against same sex marriages boils down to religious views. IMO religious dogma should play no part in the Bill of Rights. Period.
The willingness of both parties to shaft a smaller segment of society (gays) to pander to the baser instincts of a larger segment of society (the religious straights) is a sad thing indeed.
As a religious straight, I don’t feel that my instincts (base or otherwise) are being pandered to in this. Aside from that, and the idea that “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are arguably not all that different from other religious/philosophical dogma (albeit ones I think are a Good Thing), I agree with your points.
I have been tracking what Bush has to say about this since last summer and the real story is what hasn’t changed. He has been saying exactly the same thing from then on. It seems that the President is the only one who sees there is a moral argument on BOTH sides. Too bad the two extremes don’t see that. It may very well be the case there is no compromise, but I don’t think the President can be faulted for trying to find one.
Debating an amendment to the constitution actually is one of the better ways of bringing in a wide spectrum of thought. If it passes it shows a reasonable amount of consensus. If you think it is wrong-headed, offer another amendment where you propose that denying same-sex marriage violates the equal protection clause. Run them up head-to-head and see what wins. That is, unless you don’t trust the American people.
As for the in power/out of power aspect, amending the Constitution is one area where the President is irrelevant except for the bully pulpit.
As far as “trusting the American people,” when the Loving vs. Virginia decision came down in 1967, 94 percent of Americans were against interracial marriage. The prejudices of the majority shouldn’t dictate the rights of the minority.
That’s a delicate line to walk. In general, I think the rights in the Constitution rightfully represent the meta-will (vs the current whim) of the majority — though, if the majority is outraged enough over a particular implementation of them via the courts, they have the power to amend. Which, in fact, is what’s being proposed here (and will, thus, be a test of the majority’s will).
Ultimately, while it would be great if the rights of minorities were proof from the prejudices of the majority, the majority will ultimately prevail, on paper or in blood. That’s not ideal by any means, but that’s reality.
Let’s see. If every non-Black was against interracial marriage then half of all Blacks would have to be against it also! Your statistics sound very suspect.
We are also talking about an amendment here. The prejudice would need to be in three-fourths of the states and two-thirds of both houses of Congress.
Even if your statistics are corect, if a 94% prejudice can be overcome so quickly and completely, what’s a mere 50-60%? I’d rather depend on the good sense of the American people than some elite, anyway. Who’s to say the elite isn’t prejudiced?
Let’s see. If every non-Black was against interracial marriage then half of all Blacks would have to be against it also! Your statistics sound very suspect.
We are also talking about an amendment here. The prejudice would need to be in three-fourths of the states and two-thirds of both houses of Congress.
Even if your statistics are corect, if a 94% prejudice can be overcome so quickly and completely, what’s a mere 50-60%? I’d rather depend on the good sense of the American people than some elite, anyway. Who’s to say the elite isn’t prejudiced?
In doing some further research on that number that I originally heard on Atrios, I did misquote it. The survey was in 1958, and 94 percent of *white people* opposed interracial marriage. I still think it’s a jaw-dropping statistic. And the prejudice involved obviously wasn’t *overcome,* it was superceded by the kind of “activist judges” being attacked today in Massachusetts etc.
I also believe that Orson Scott Card, Mrs. du Toit and all the rest railing against the evils of same-sex marriage will not be looked at kindly by history. Which suits me just fine.
I agree that those who rail against gay marriage will, I suspect, find themselves where those who, four decades ago, railed for racial segregation find themselves today.
I find myself something of a fence sitter, though, to this extent: while I believe that there are fundamental human rights involved, and that the Constitution’s codification of them (such as equal protection under the law) should trmp such matters, I also have to acknowledge that there are dangers in going against too often and too strongly against popular will — not because vox populi vox Dei (though it does a better job of it in most cases than the alternatives), but because ultimately the popular will has the power, if pressed enough, to change the Constitution to enforce its will.
I think that, given the opportunity to become familiar with it, most folk will be willing to accept gay marriage (just as most folk have become much more tolerant of homosexuality in general, as gays have become more visible). The problem is, we may see intolerance codified in the Constitution before that happens, if the popular will is pushed too far, too fast.
How long do we wait? How slow is slow enough? It was interesting to watch “Iron Jawed Angels” on HBO about women’s suffrage, and see so many parallels with the marriage debate. The women meet with Wilson and he says condescendingly, “You just have to wait a little bit longer.” They decided they’d waited long enough.
The Constitutional amendment doesn’t even have the votes in the Senate to pass today, at the height of the “backlash.” I think enough people (including, amazingly, Roy “10 Commandments” Moore) are fundamentally uneasy with enshrining discrimination in the Constitution that it’s just a threat used by backlash fans like Mrs. du Toit.
I think people will accept this if it’s framed correctly. Words mean things. But unfortunately, the Dems don’t have the courage of their convictions. Spineless poll-worshipping politicians are the real problem here, not the “popular will.”
That’s the question — how long is too long, how quick is too quick? Leaving an injustice in place is a horrible thing. On the other hand, pressing to end it prematurely has its own risks (see the debate over the slavery question at the drafting of the Declaration of Independence as an example).
If the amendment doesn’t have enough votes to pass, then huzzah. The system “works.”
I would say that popular will on this is broad, but not deep, and we agree that, framed properly, polls and opinions could quickly change. They could also, though, change the other direction. I hope that doesn’t happen.