By all accounts, supporters of the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) lack the required two-thirds majorities in either house of Congress. That's why, suddenly, we're seeing conservatives scrambling for some sort of "compromise" language. The typically gay-unfriendly editorial page of the Wall Street Journal on Friday opined that "Now, even some who support a constitutional remedy wonder about the language. There is debate about whether the amendment's language would bar states from endorsing civil unions, which Mr. Bush says they should be free to do."
Another example: An interesting column by Michael Horowitz of the conservative Hudson Institute, published at Tech Central Station, says the proposed anti-gay marriage/civil union wipeout under the FMA "will please some conservatives and evangelicals, but will go nowhere." Horowitz suggests an alternative saying civil marriages will be determined by voters or legislatures of the states, with no state requried to recognize any other's marriages. It's less draconian, certainly, than what's before Congress now, but still unnecessary and a slap -- in what other civil rights matter are state courts barred from ruling? Still, it's a good sign that the present amendment is already hemorrhaging support on the right.
More Evidence the Wind Will Not Subside.
The Green Party mayor of New Paltz, NY, is performing gay
marriages, and hundreds have flocked upstate to be wed. Reports the
NY Times:
Coming with little warning, the wedding ceremonies here left many lawyers and politicians struggling to respond, while independent observers and advocates for gay rights said the move may signal a shift in the scope of the cultural struggles -- from big cities to small towns.
"politicians, advocates, and outside observers said the events of Friday demonstrated how quickly the issue is moving and how unpredictable it has become.
Indeed it has.
And here's a good wrap up from the Washington Post on what's happening in California.
Enough 'Free Passes'.
An editorial in this week's Washington Blade takes aim at John Kerry's support for a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. "We give gay-friendly politicians a 'free pass' almost anytime they tell us that supporting our equality would require actual courage on their part," writes editor Chris Crain.
Equal Time: Academic and author Tibor Machan,
who is "neither left nor right," zeroes in on Bush's confused
logic. He
writes:
Mr. Bush is, in fact, trying to have it both ways, a limited government dedicated primarily to protecting our individual rights to liberty, and an intrusive federal government that is dictating to all what they ought to call their romantic unions.
Machan also has this aside:
...among [those faithful to] the Reverend Moon, people get married en masse, without even knowing to whom they are to be married; talk about a bizarre idea for American culture, yet nothing the law should prevent it.
Worth Noting.
This is from the Blade's "On the Record" compilation. It was sent to the S.C. legislature by James and Irene Smith:
The institution of marriage doesn't need protection from loving, caring gay South Carolinians like our son and his partner; it needs protection from demagogues and hypocrites like John Graham Altmann III who spew bigotry and who have more ex-spouses than they have clean underwear."
Rep. Altman, a leading gay-marriage opponent, is now on wife no. 3.
History Lesson
Theodore Roosevelt wanted a constitutional
amendment limiting divorce and barring polygamy. It went
nowhere, too.