A hearing was held Thursday before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution. The topic: "What is Needed to Defend the Bipartisan Defense of Marriage Act of 1996?" (click to see the testimony transcripts). IGF contributing author and Univ. of Minnesota law professor Dale Carpenter explained why amending the Constitution to forbid states from granting legal recognition to same-sex relationships is not such a good idea. He testified:
The solemn task of amending the nation's fundamental law should be reserved for actual problems.
Never before in the history of the country have we amended the Constitution in response to a threatened (or actual) state court decision. Never before have we adopted a constitutional amendment to limit the states' ability to control their own family law. Never before have we dictated to states what their own state laws and state constitution mean. Never before have we amended the Constitution to restrict the ability of the democratic process to expand individual rights. This is no time to start"
Also testifying against the proposed amendment was Keith Bradkowski, whose partner of 11 years was a flight attendant on the first plane to be crashed into the World Trade Center on 9/11. His moving testimony put a human face on the issues.
Reports are that the hearing was surprisingly even-handed and not the homophobic circus many had feared. Quite possibly, it was held to placate the anti-gay right rather than to give the amendment a real push. The subcommittee's chairman, Sen. John Cormyn, is a Bush loyalist. Had he not called the hearing, it's very likely someone else, with more demagogic intentions, would have claimed jurisdiction and done so.
But gays on the left can't see the balancing act that the administration is engaged in, and simplistically tell their followers that Bush and the entire GOP are pushing a hardcore anti-gay agenda.
A related item: In this op-ed from Friday's Washington Post, former GOP Senator Alan Simpson takes aim at conservatives who support the proposed anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment. He writes:
That people of goodwill would disagree was something our Founders fully understood when they created our federal system. They saw that contentious social issues would best be handled in the legislatures of the states, where debates could be held closest to home. That's why we should let the states decide how best to define and recognize any legally sanctioned unions -- marriage or otherwise.
As someone who is basically a conservative, I see not an argument about banning marriage or "defending" families but rather a power grab. Conservatives argue vehemently about federal usurpation of other issues best left to the states, such as abortion or gun control. Why would they elevate this one to the federal level?
A good question, indeed!