On this St. Valentine's Day, Massachusetts is on the verge of granting marriage licenses to gay couples and San Francisco has already begun doing so.
Writes columnist
Ellen Goodman:
When the gay rights movement focused on marriage, it changed the image of homosexual America. Today the gay poster couples are middle-aged parents with a kid, a golden retriever and a soccer schedule. The "gay agenda" is a wedding.
For better or for worse, I suppose. Meanwhile, more than 100 members of Congress have co-sponsored the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, and White House aides say President Bush is about to endorse it. John Kerry opposes a federal amendment, but thinks states should amend their own constitutions to ban gay marriages.
The Washington Post has an excellent feature on the debate over
what the proposed federal amendment actually says, when it
says:
"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."
Some of its backers claim this would not prohibit states from recognizing Vermont-style civil unions, and much of the media (including the hapless New York Times) have reported this assertion as if it were so. But it's increasinlgy evident the phrase "marital status or the legal incidents thereof" would also prohibit recognition/enforcement of civil unions and domestic partnerships, or else the words would have no purpose.
And, as the Washington Post story notes:
Two of the amendment's principal authors, professors Robert P. George of Princeton and Gerard V. Bradley of Notre Dame Law School, contend that the opening sentence also would forbid some kinds of civil unions. ...
Gay rights groups contend that the phrase about "legal incidents" of marriage would bar civil unions, and that evangelical Christian organizations are trying to sell the amendment to the public as more moderate than it is.
In the cultural wars, it seems, the first casualty is truth.
More Mendacity.
If Bush is flat-out wrong, at least we know where he stands. As
the Washington Blade editorializes, John Kerry wants to confuse
his views and is succeeding:
In an interview this week on National Public Radio, Kerry expressed support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. His campaign staff quickly reassured a Blade reporter the next day that Kerry was talking about an amendment to the Massachusetts state Constitution and that he maintains his opposition to the federal amendment.
Of course the national radio audience that heard Kerry didn't learn of that distinction, because the question was not specifically addressed to the Massachusetts state Constitution and neither was Kerry's answer. It was the second time in recent weeks Kerry has fudged the gay marriage issue.
Not exactly a profile in courage, is it?
Gay Activists at Work (Sort Of).
IGF contributing author Paul Varnell takes a sharp-eyed look at the salaries being paid to leaders of gay organizations -- sometimes in excess of what other comparably sized nonprofits pay (GLAAD's Joan Garry, last year's top-paid gay leader at $210,000 according to a Washington Blade survey Paul cites, rakes in "a stunning 5 percent of her organization's total annual revenues").
And what do you get for your money. Often, inanities like the
following from the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists
Assocation (NLGJA). Of all the issues regarding the reporting, and
misreporting, of the Federal Marriage Amendment, the PC squad at
the NLGJA has decided to unleash its ammunition against the (get
this) use of the terms "gay marriage" and "same-sex marriage" by
the press. Declares an "Open Letter from the National Lesbian &
Gay Journalists Association to the News Industry on Accurate
Reporting About Marriage for Gays and Lesbians" (from Pamela
Strother, Executive Director):
The terms "gay marriage" and "same-sex marriage" are inaccurate and misleading. The decision made by the Massachusetts court affects the state's existing marriage law. The court has ordered the state to apply the existing law equally to gay and lesbian couples as early as May 2004. The accurate terminology on-air, in headlines and in body type should be "marriage for gays and lesbians."
Oh, sure, I can just see that phrase making it into
headlines. The press, of course, will rightfully ignore such
stupidity, but it's a sad statement of just how weak our national
organizations are, as we embark on what may be the fight of our
lives.
More Recent Postings