I can't disagree with Democratic strategist Jim Jordan on this
one. As
the Washington Post reports, Bush is expected to endorse the
anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment. Says Jordan:
"When Republicans are in a pinch, they always look for the cultural wedge issue," he said. "Bush's margin of victory in 2000, such as it was, came from moderate suburban voters taking Bush's word that he was a different kind of Republican, a compassionate conservative. Issues like this look mean-spirited."
Hedging His Bets.
Democratic frontrunner John Kerry seemed
to be telling National Public Radio this week he, too, could
support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage,
saying:
"Well, it depends entirely on the language of whether it permits civil union and partnership or not. I'm for civil union. I'm for partnership rights."
But as for same-sex marriage, his opposition is so strong he'd
consider favoring an amendment:
"Marriage is a separate institution. I think marriage is under the church, between a man and a woman, and I think there's a separate meaning to it."
And you don't want to sully something as sacred as marriage with homosexuals, do you?
While the NPR interviewer appeared to be asking about amending the federal Constitution, Kerry's gay liaison quickly protested that Kerry thought he was answering a question about amending the Massachusetts state constitution, and affirmed that Kerry is against the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment. In other words, Kerry can plausibly argue to be on both sides of the gay marriage issue -- shades of his Iraqi position(s). He's only for constitutionally banning same-sex marriage in the one state where it might otherwise happen.
Now let's see what the gay Democratic activists do. Chances are they'll defend Kerry's mixed messages, reiterate that Bush and the GOP are responsible for all evil in the world, and party hardy in Boston.
Meanwhile, Time this week reports:
As Air Force One flew to South Carolina last week, the President made clear his opposition to gay marriage but added, "I'm not against anybody," according to Jim DeMint, a Republican Congressman who was aboard. "If some people want to have a contract, that's O.K., but marriage is the foundation of society." Though it was an offhand comment, the idea that Bush might favor some kind of "contract" for gay couples -- presumably a type of state recognition -- is astonishing when you look back at the brief history of the gay-marriage debate.
No, I'm not defending Bush or excusing his actions -- just noting that even the conservative GOP camp has moved quite far from where it was a few years ago.
A final thought: If the amendment can be stopped, the
advancement toward full equality for gay Americans will have jumped
forward exponentially. If the amendment succeeds, we'll be frozen
in place for a generation. Those who stand up to popular prejudice
and defend our Constitution, as written, will be true profiles in
courage. We know Bush is on the wrong side of this one; Kerry -- to
date -- is trying to have it both ways.