The House of Representatives is set to vote this week on the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), a political ploy by right-wing Republicans to bash gay-supportive Democrats, since the Senate's anti-amendment vote (with Kerry and Edwards absent) dooms the measure for this session. Our own Dale Carpenter has written an excellent paper for the Cato Institute explaining why this debate should remain in the state legislatures and the federal government has no business regulating family life. It's an argument aimed at small government, pro-federalism conservatives who should oppose the FMA.
Meanwhile, Cheryl Jacques, head of the Human Rights Campaign
(HRC), during a conference last week with journalists quoted in the
Washington Blade,
lobbied against the FMA by saying:
"This is nothing but a political effort to draw attention away from Congress' failure to do something about the economy, the hemorrhaging of jobs, rising health care costs and national security."
Let's reflect on this tactic. HRC ought to be doing whatever it can to move moderate and libertarian-minded Republicans to oppose the FMA, arguing against constitutionalizing the marriage ban in a way that might sway them. Instead, she uses language that mirrors Kerry's critique of Bush's domestic agenda and calls for more expansive government. This tactic can only have one outcome: to antagonize those very Republicans whose votes she should be soliciting!
Jacques is a partisan drone who hasn't made a right call since
taking the helm at HRC earlier this year. It's time for her to
go.