As President Bush prepares to kow-tow to the social/religious right with a Rose Garden endorsement of the federal "marriage protection" amendment, banning all states from either legislatively or judicially recognizing same-sex unions, let's note more online evidence that it's not only the gay left that opposes the amendment.
Walter Olson chimes in at the excellent Overlawyered.com, citing James Q. Wilson, about as impressive a policy intellectual as the right has to offer, who came out against the amendment in March.
And the libertarian Cato Institute has published IGF contributing author Dale Carpenter's critique of the amendment.
More. The Right Side of the Rainbow blog has an interesting take on nonsense from both sides.
Still more. On Saturday, President Bush used his weekly radio broadcast to call for passage of the amendment. While the Democrats typically use their weekly radio response time to address the same issue as Bush, this week they instead talked about the war in Iraq. That about sums it up, doesn't it?
37 Comments for “Marriage-Go-Round.”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
… and when the President has duly bloviated and Republican Senators on their third and fourth marriages have waxed eloquent about the “sanctity of marriage”, the Senate is going to vote the MPA down more or less along party lines.
Then we can get on to the real purpose of the MPA, which is to allow the GOP to use us as fodder to “energize the base” and try to squeak out phyrric victories.
The victories, to the extent that the GOP gets them, will be phyrric because GBLT folk are going to win this war. The American people have settled down since the panic of 2004, and the trend toward acceptance of GLBT equality is back on track, reflecting the ongoing shift in opinion that has been tracked now for almost two decades.
I think that it is important to remember that … the Republicans may just be forgetting that to their peril.
posted by Ed Brown on
Cato is a libertarian organization, so I am not sure how ‘right’ they are.
posted by Boo on
To the people pushing this amendment, all gays are by their nature hard left.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Frankly, as a gay I hope the FMA passes and we can end the silly talk and political manipulations of the GayLeft and Democrats… and move on, state by state, to secure civil unions. Nail this option’s coffin shut and let’s get back to making a difference for REAl gay rights.
posted by Scott on
Hey Tom, you forgot to invoke Barry Goldwater’s name for the billionth time in a post. Is anyone surprised Bush is pushing this amendment yet again? I certainly am not. As I’ve said before you can be a good Republican and not agree on this issue. Case closed.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
“Hey Tom, you forgot to invoke Barry Goldwater’s name for the billionth time in a post.”
Well, I do it often enough that you can hear his message if you don’t have your eyes wide shut, so no harm done, I guess.
“Is anyone surprised Bush is pushing this amendment yet again?”
Anyone but Laura? I doubt it. Its an election cycle, after all.
“As I’ve said before you can be a good Republican and not agree on this issue. Case closed.”
Of course you can, Scott. I don’t quarrel with you about it, but the price isn’t something I’m willing to pay any more.
posted by Scott on
Tom, I was actually joking with you about Goldwater. I like him. I just think it’s a case of deciding whether gay marriage is more important than the nation’s security, taxes (which hit gays disproportinately and yes I know marriage has something to do with that) and reforming Social Security. For me it’s not the big issue. Perhaps I’m not gay enough. LOL
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Scott: “Tom, I was actually joking with you about Goldwater. I like him. I just think it’s a case of deciding whether gay marriage is more important than the nation’s security, taxes (which hit gays disproportinately and yes I know marriage has something to do with that) and reforming Social Security. For me it’s not the big issue. Perhaps I’m not gay enough. LOL
Well, Goldwater is important, in my view, because he reminds us that there was a time when “conservative” stood for using the power of the federal government to expand freedom for the individual, not for using the power of the federal government to enforce evangelical Christian moralism.
Folk who came on board after Ronald Reagan brought in the Moral Majority typically don’t know that …
With respect to other issues, the RNC put out this credo for Republicans:
“I am a Republican because . . .
(1) I believe the strength of our nation lies with the individual and that each person’s dignity, freedom, ability and responsibility must be honored.
(2) I believe in equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, sex, age or disability.
(3) I believe free enterprise and encouraging individual initiative have brought this nation opportunity, economic growth and prosperity.
(4) I believe the government must practice fiscal responsibility and allow individuals to keep more of the money they earn.
(5) I believe the proper role of government is to provide for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals or private organizations and that the best government is that which governs least.
(6) I believe the most effective, responsible and responsive government is government closest to the people.
(7) I believe Americans must retain the principles that have made us strong while developing new and innovative ideas to meet the challenges of changing times.
(8) I believe Americans value and should preserve our national strength and pride while working to extend peace, freedom and human rights throughout the world.
Finally, I believe the Republican Party is the best vehicle for translating these ideals into positive and successful principles of government.”
I look at that credo and I agree with it.
Then I ask myself whether the modern Republican Party is furthering those goals.
In my view, the Republican Party is doing very badly, by and large, with respect to (1), (2), (4), (5), (6) and (8), while misusing and abusing (7). If nothing else, I certainly do not agree with the finale: “Finally, I believe the Republican Party is the best vehicle for translating these ideals into positive and successful principles of government.”
The modern Republican Party does not have a record I can support any longer with a clear conscience.
posted by Jim Burroway on
Monday June 5th is the 25th anniversary of the CDC\\’s first report of five gay men who died of AIDS in Los Angeles. It looks like Bush will commemorate that solemn occasion by proposing that we write discrimination against gay couples into the constitution.
What perfect timing!
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“whether gay marriage is more important than the nation’s security, taxes (which hit gays disproportinately and yes I know marriage has something to do with that) and reforming Social Security”
How sad that you’d subscribe to a political philosophy which leads to such an irrational dichotomy.
posted by Lori Heine on
What almost nobody anywhere is asking is, “What would this Amendment do to the Constitution as a whole?”
It would do plenty.
It violates the Non-Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. It also violates the Ninth, Tenth and possibly even the Fourteenth Amendment.
I would like to hope I would be very concerned about this, even if I were heterosexual and highly anti-gay. What will it do, long-term, to the Constitution to begin passing amendments that ignore existing amendments — that simply pretend they are not there? How does this not undermine the integrity of the supreme law of our land as a whole?
This is the question we ought to be asking those who either support the FMA or are on the fence about it. Even people who don’t give a tinker’s damn about gay rights ought to care what happens to their country.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Effectively, advocates of this amendment (and their partisan team-sport apologists) are effectively saying there are entire classes of American citizens who they hate so much, that they should have their constitutional rights permanently revoked in a number of areas.
Doubtlessly, the same people can be counted on blathering about “freedom” in other contexts.
posted by Scott on
You call it sad that I don’t believe gay marriage trumps national security? Perhaps you’re the one with bizzare and “sad” priorities? What’s the point of even discussing marriage rights for gays when we’re at war with terrorists (I know – that’s not as important as buying china patterns at a select store)? I just don’t get it. Maybe I never will. And if you don’t believe that being able to invest some of your own money via Social Security would benefit yourself and your partner (assuming you have one) then you are the one who is truly pathetic!
posted by Scott on
One more point to the “northeastern libertarian.” You go on and on about how the two major parties have “team” players and apologists, yet all you do in your posts is spew the Libertarian talking points of the day. How transparent can you be? Do you really think no one notices how lock-step your statements are? I will say it again – the Libertarians deserve to remain an electoral spec of dust. And you have yourself to thank for that. I know what my beliefs are and I know exactly why I believe them. That bothers you because I am a Republican and you think I should bolt and join forces with some over-zealous group of folks like yourself? Nah. Can’t do that. I’ll stick with the “old” way as you call it.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Scott: “What’s the point of even discussing marriage rights for gays when we’re at war with terrorists (I know – that’s not as important as buying china patterns at a select store)? I just don’t get it. Maybe I never will.”
I hope that this was said in haste, Scott.
The fight against the PMA is not about “buying china patterns at a select store” or such nonsense. It is a struggle against (a) an attempt to use our Constitution to deprive gays and lesbians of equal protection under the law, with material and negative consequences for GLBT couples and their children, and (b) an attempt to create an exception in our Constitution, based on amimus, to the “reserved powers” clause of the 10th Amendment and the “equal protection” guarantee of the 14th Amendment.
Perhaps mocking NEL about “china patterns” is nothing more than a case of engaging your fingers before you engaged your brain this morning, but if not, you need to think more seriously about this issue and its implications for our society.
posted by Randy R. on
The one thing this vote on the FMA will accomplish is that it will cement in people’s minds that republicans = anti-gay.
this will hurt the party for a long time.
posted by Scott on
Tom – I wrote that of clear mind and conscience. No apologies. I am more concerned with the issues I mentioned above than with whether my partner and I EVER are legally married. Let’s remember that there are things that do rank above gay marriage. Sorry, Tom, no can do on retracting my previous post. I have thought about this issue very, very seriously and actually do support marital rights. However, I also understand that demanding such purity from politicians and judges isn’t worth fretting over. You go ahead and wring your hands and pace the floor.
posted by Scott on
Oh Tommy, one more thing – unless I am addressing you specifically in a post do me a favor and not waste my time by injecting your opinions in a reply to a post that had NOTHING to do with you.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Scott: “Oh Tommy, one more thing – unless I am addressing you specifically in a post do me a favor and not waste my time by injecting your opinions in a reply to a post that had NOTHING to do with you. ”
posted by J. Peron on
Two recent libertarian/classical liberal views on gay marriage can be found at this sites.
http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2006/06/whos-rent-seeking-now.html
http://liberalvalues.org.nz/index.php?action=view_journal&journal_id=225
posted by martind on
“Oh Tommy, one more thing – unless I am addressing you specifically in a post do me a favor and not waste my time by injecting your opinions in a reply to a post that had NOTHING to do with you.”
Sorry, it don’t work that way.
You must be kidding.
When you post, your comments are fair game for anybody’s response. This should be obvious.
Sheesh!
posted by raj on
Lori Heine | June 2, 2006, 9:34pm | #
Almost by definition, a constitutional amendment cannot “violate” the constitution: it changes the constitution as it existed at the time that the amendment was ratified. Hence, a constitutional amendment that was ratified after the 1st, 9th, 10th or 14th amendments cannot “violate” the US consitution, it would operate to modify–that is, restrict–the scope of protection provided by those amendments.
posted by raj on
Scott | June 2, 2006, 3:26pm | #
I just think it’s a case of deciding whether gay marriage is more important than the nation’s security, taxes (which hit gays disproportinately and yes I know marriage has something to do with that) and reforming Social Security. For me it’s not the big issue. Perhaps I’m not gay enough. LOL
Apparently Bush, Bill Frist and some of his fellow Republicans in the US Senate believe that gay marrige is more important than the nation’s security, taxes, social security “reform” and so forth, since they are taking time (in Bush’s case) to stump for the proposed amendment, and (in Frist’s case) to put it on the Senate’s agenda. Of course, I understand that they are trying to divert the attention of the American voters from the Bush malAdministration’s problems in Iraq and Afghanistan (a couple of days ago, Bush’s ambassador to Afghanistan told the foreign press that the US is expecting a “bloody summer” there this summer). But, I guess the Bushies expect that, if they can’t get national security, taxes, social security “reform” and so forth, the only thing they can do to energize their voters is to bash the queers. Rhetorically, of course.
posted by raj on
It’s amazing to me how little at least some Republicans actually think
Scott | June 3, 2006, 8:30am | #
And if you don’t believe that being able to invest some of your own money via Social Security….
Oh, come on, get real. The Bush malAdministration’s silly propaganda about establishing special SS retirement accounts into which you could pour some of your SS tax payments is just that: silly propaganda. Several types of special retirement accounts already exist: traditional IRAs, Roth IRAs, 401(k)s, retirement trusts available for the self-employed, and so forth. So why go about setting up yet another form of account?
Since the Bushies’ didn’t provide an actual detailed proposal–as far as I could tell–one possibility is that, if an employee diverted, say, 2% of the SS tax into this special account, the employer wouldn’t be liable for its 2% portion of the SS tax–remember, employers also pay a portion of the SS tax. That would be a rather substantial tax decrease on employers. Where would the employer’s tax decrease go? Probably not to the employees.
On another matter, it was unlikely that any SS privatization would have gone anywhere, even if the Bush malAdministration had submitted an actual proposal. Why? I’ll give you a little history–although I know that more than a few Republicans don’t care much for history. In the early 1980s, the Reagan malAdministration set up an SS advisory commission, headed by Saint Alan Greenspan, to propose changes to SS to “shore it up.” (Oddly, this was at least the second commission under a Republican president–an earlier commission had also been set up in the early 1970s. Somehow, I sense a trend.) Under the Greenspan commission’s proposal–which was essentially enacted–SS taxes would rise markedly, both in tax rates and in the income on which the tax was applied. But the most important point was that the SS account would be integrated with the general budget accounts. The obvious import of that was that the surpluses due to the increased in SS tax revenue would offset the looming Reagan deficits in the other accounts, and make the Reagan deficits look smaller than they actually were, when compared to raw numbers from previous years.
Fast forward to today. The surpluses in the SS tax receipts also offset at least some of the deficits in the Bush malAdministration’s general budget. In the last reporting period, the overall deficit (including general budget and SS) was reported to be on the order of 2.6% of GDP. But, if the surplus in SS tax revenues was factored out, the reported deficit would have been on the order of 4% of GDP, about 50% higher.
It strains credulity to believe that the Bush malAdministration would actually enact an SS proposal that would obviously substantially increase the reported budget deficit. But, on the other hand, more than a few of their policies have strained credulity.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“You call it sad that I don’t believe gay marriage trumps national security?”
No, I find it sad that you believe that gay marriage has anything to do with national security. I also find hilarious your unspoken assumption — that Bush is preserving national security. After all, under his watch, the two largest terrorist attacks on mainland America were conducted, despite numerous warnings from prior administrations, foreign intelligence services and the domestic intelligence services.
“being able to invest some of your own money via Social Security”
I’d rather have the option of opting out of the Social Security ponzi scheme entirely, and investing my own money my own way for my own retirement sans Republicrat big government socialism. Too bad that wasn’t even on the Republican socialist agenda. . .
posted by Randy R. on
So Bush issues a radio address. Who the hell listens to any president’s radio address? And there is a Democratic response? Now THAT’s news to me!
And could people please stop posting twice? it’s a little annoying.
posted by Lori Heine on
Raj, modifying the Constitution is, according to the framework of the document itself, to be done by passing an amendment DEALING WITH THE FACT OF whichever amendment(s) it would change. Not by simply ignoring what’s already there and pretending that it doesn’t exist.
Prohibition, for example, was not only enacted by an amendment but also revoked by one.
Is that cumbersome? Of course. And the framers meant it to be difficult and time-consuming, so the practice of changing the Constitution would not be abused or done as a matter of momentary political whim.
Those pushing this boondoggle are banking on the public’s ignorance. They are hoping that not very many people have read the Constitution since Teacher made them back in Eighth grade, and that they don’t realize what’s in it. The sad thing is that these cynical manipulators seem to be right.
What will happen to the Constitution if we begin ignoring what’s already there and whitewashing over it, as if it were old wallpaper we simply want to cover? There can be no question it would undermine its authority for us to treat what’s already there as if it’s “so yesterday” that we an simply close our eyes to it and begin considering it ficticious.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“There can be no question it would undermine its authority for us to treat what’s already there as if it’s “so yesterday” that we an simply close our eyes to it and begin considering it ficticious.”
Then again, our Fearless Leader allegedly said the constitution is “just a piece of paper.” More importantly, his zeal for violating the various amendments demonstrates that attitude.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
NEL: “Then again, our Fearless Leader allegedly said the constitution is ‘just a piece of paper.’”
Well, actually, he said “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”
I think that we should have some sympathy for the President. The President was under severe provocation. He was being criticized in his own office by a staffer, who does not bear the awesome responsibility of the Presidency, and the staffer was apparently throwing a copy of the Constitution at the President’s face.
The staffer is lucky that the Secret Service didn’t step in or that Charlatan Heston wasn’t present.
But, anyway, anyone could have used the word “goddamn” under such circumstances. I think even I, the soul of decorum, might have said “goddamn” if someone was throwing the Constitution in my face.
Just to keep the record straight, here is the report of the incident as originally published:
Bush: Constitution ‘just a goddamn piece of paper’
By DOUG THOMPSON
December 9, 2005, 05:51
Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.
Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.
GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”
“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”
“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”
I’ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper.”
It is very vexing to be criticized, as everyone knows, so the President’s lapse in language should, in my view, be overlooked. As the late Mayor Richard M. Daley once said when his policies for the city of Chicago were being questioned by a bunch of “goo-goos” (Chicagoese for the “good government” types), “They have vilified me, they have crucified me; yes, they have even criticized me.”
posted by Avee on
So Bush issues a radio address. Who the hell listens to any president’s radio address? And there is a Democratic response? Now THAT’s news to me!
Randy, the president’s weekly radio address and the Democratic response are widely reported each Saturday, including by CNN and all major media. You comment is simply ignorant (why am I not surprised?).
posted by Scott on
I watched the presidential “address” to those loving, compassionate religious “leaders” yesterday with disgust. Though I am not naive enough to believe that the church as an institution is going to embrace its gay members it never ceases to amaze me how many of the ministers can stand up and spew venom from their lips, all the while claiming to be doing so in the name of God. As for President Bush, well, he’s a lost leader with no clear vision or purpose any longer. If I had a vote to cast for president this year it would NOT be for him (or Kerry either). And no, I wouldn’t vote Libertarian. If the GOP refuses to step up to the plate and bat the wingnuts out of the party’s agenda-setting in 2008 I’ll gladly entertain an independent or fusion ticket. I’d love to see John McCain running with Joe Leiberman or Guiliani. This amendment is nothing short of pandering and a pathetic attempt to drive zealots to the polls. All it will accomplish is cementing the cynicism that many fiscal conservatives and social moderates inside the GOP feel and force us to look elsewhere for leadership. And for the last time, will someone please offer a defense of all the black preachers using gays as a pulpit for their own brand of bigotry? I heard one of them say that he “didn’t have a choice about his skin color but you (gays) can change your behavior.” Perhaps someone should point out that many black men CAN change THEIR behavior as well, i.e. fatherless children, crime rates, etc. Oh yeah, and let’s ban divorce and infidelity too. Oh wait -then the fundamentalists would have to sit quietly. Hits too close to home.
posted by kittynboi on
And for the last time, will someone please offer a defense of all the black preachers using gays as a pulpit for their own brand of bigotry? I heard one of them say that he “didn’t have a choice about his skin color but you (gays) can change your behavior.” Perhaps someone should point out that many black men CAN change THEIR behavior as well, i.e. fatherless children, crime rates, etc. Oh yeah, and let’s ban divorce and infidelity too. Oh wait -then the fundamentalists would have to sit quietly. Hits too close to home.
Well, the issue of black homophobia is one I’ve been trying to get people to wake up too for a long time, but only a few people readily admit that it exists.
I also think black homophobia is one of the things that keeps the left so pathetic and afraid when it comes to fighting for gay rights.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I don’t think it’s any one thing which keeps the left pathetic and afraid when it comes to gay rights. I think their embracing of the gay rights movement was a cynical move they undertook when the Republicans embraced the religious right. When the left realized that gays had campaign cash, they went for the cash.
It could have just as easily gone the other way, with gays going Republican and Democrats embracing the fundies as a result.
It doesn’t change the fact that the old parties are generally bastions of obnoxious homophobia.
posted by Scott on
You know something NEL – you are truly an ignorant person. You trumpet your powerless and irrelavant Libertarians as being some wonderful alternative to the “old” parties as you call them, yet it is painfully clear your views are no more important than their share of the vote total every election cycle. I am no longer interested in your opinions. Please take them elsewhere. You’re not contributing anything.
posted by kittynboi on
I am no longer interested in your opinions. Please take them elsewhere.
I didn’t know you were in charge of who could post here and why.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“There ought to be limits to freedom,” eh Scott?
Who would have guessed how prescient that utterance by Bush would have ended up being? From his violation of eight of the ten Amendments in the Bill of Rights to the rhetoric of his shills like yourself about alternate opinions, it’s proven to be the underlying philosophy of the entire modern Republican Party.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Scott: “I am no longer interested in your opinions. Please take them elsewhere.”
Its all about you, honey, all about you.
Snort.
Look. Its real simple. If you don’t want to read NEL’s posts, then don’t. Blog Reading 101.