First published on July 23, 2004, in the Chicago Free Press.
The furor leading up to the disposition of the Federal Marriage Amendment was a tangle of feints, posturing, mixed signals and tactical maneuvering. But the final result was almost a letdown.
In the end, anti-gay zealots and their fellow travelers were unable to get even a simple majority on a vote to close off debate, much less the 60 votes they needed and far less than the two-thirds vote necessary to pass the amendment. And the 48 votes for cloture included some Republicans such as U.S. Sens. Arlen Specter (Pa.) and John Warner (Va.) who were willing to go along with party leaders on cloture but announced their opposition to the amendment itself.
But the "debate" - mostly "end of the world" rhetoric from social conservatives - was disappointing since the issues were never joined. As with the anti-gay marriage arguments all along, no senator ever explained how marriage by gays would harm marriage, children or the country.
Co-sponsor Wayne Allard, R-Colo., claimed that "Marriage is the foundation of a free society." Wrong, bozo! The Soviet Union had marriage. Communist China has marriage. The actual foundations of a free society are - pay attention now! - private property, laws against initiating force, enforcement of contracts and limited government.
The supposedly pro-gay side was disappointing too. Anti-amendment senators argued that the amendment was unnecessary since the Defense of Marriage Act was in place. Or that the Senate should be spending its time on other issues. But no senator, even liberal senators with safe seats, ever managed to say that the amendment was bad because gay marriage was a good thing, that it would be good for gays and good for the country.
It was as if the Brave Knight rode up to a clearing where the Evil Dragon had the Innocent Damsel tied to a stake and instead of killing the dragon, the knight said to it, "Really now, this is just so inappropriate at this time! I totally sympathize with your feelings but we already have laws against unescorted damsels gadding about outside of castles and, anyway, there really are more important things dragons should spend their time on - like guarding treasure hordes. And isn't this really just a ploy to get attention, perhaps even a subconscious cry for help?"
To be sure, anti-amendment senators might say they were trying to appeal to their undecided colleagues but does anyone really think that by the time debate began any senator was really undecided? Put it down rather to politicians' long ingrained habit of anticipatory damage control, never exposing him - or herself any more than absolutely necessary.
It was particularly disappointing that U.S. Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards, touted by gay Democratic groups as "the most pro-gay presidential ticket ever" managed to be elsewhere and were the only senators not to cast a vote. To be sure, both men said they opposed the amendment and would have returned to Washington had the amendment itself been voted on.
So they said. But it cannot be encouraging for those seeking evidence of either man's willingness to pursue gay-supportive policies when faced with the risk of any political damage. Ah, someone might say, but this is just during the campaign. Once they are safely elected they will be different. Well, not necessarily. After all, a President Kerry would want to be re-elected. Seeking re-election, Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act.
Supporters of the amendment say now they never expected to win passage on the first attempt. Funny how they never said anything like that before the debate. And they say they will bring the amendment back again. Brave talk, but having lost once, and lost significantly, momentum can hardly be said to be with them. So the helium may be leaking out of their blimp. That would be for two reasons:
1. Anti-gay advocates pin their hopes on defeating senators, mostly Democrats, who opposed the amendment. "This will be a big issue in November and I think a couple of senators who we saw today won't be coming back in January," anti-gay crusader Gary Bauer said.
But gay marriage is hardly a major issue in most states and in so close an election, President George W. Bush has no electoral "coattails" to offer his party, so the GOP can expect to pick up at most two or three seats, not enough to change the dynamics of the senate. And at least one of those senators who won't be coming back is amendment co-sponsor Peter Fitzgerald, R-Ill., who will likely be replaced by Democrat Barack Obama.
2. Time is on the pro-gay side. Public opinion continues to move slowly in a pro-gay direction, so as time goes on the chance of the amendment's passage dwindles. Young people moving into the ranks of voters are increasingly gay-supportive. The New York Times reported recently that the former editor of Northwestern University's conservative magazine "said his college paper had trouble finding any conservatives on campus who supported amending the constitution to ban same-sex marriage."