Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.
A sad day for a sinking presidency. This anti-federalist amendment which would ban states from recognizing not only same-sex marriage but also "the legal incidents thereof" (i.e., civil unions and probably even domestic partnerships) is going nowhere, which is the good news. But the response of even those Democrats and moderate Republicans voting against it-i.e., suggesting the topic itself is unworthy of debate-is also indefensible. What a display of gay political impotence all round, and a missed opportunity to make a positive case for the principle of equality (or even something closer to equality, such as civil unions).
19 Comments for “No Heroes.”
posted by Lori Heine on
I still think it’s much more troubling — and ought to be for every American, gay and straight — that we have a President who does not respect our Constitution. These are dangerous times for our country.
Straight people are generally pretty selfish animals. They only care about themselves, and what immediately affects them. When we try to reason with them on the basis of gay rights per se, they think, “well, you’re only interested in yourselves, too. But there are more of me than there are of you, so what we say goes.”
This is a political gutter-fight. Nobody seems to remember that we, as Americans, share certain common interests and principles. One group need not defeat or subjugate another in order for our common principles to prevail. As a matter of fact, if any group does this to any other, those principles will have failed us all.
The founders of this country came from thirteen different colonies. They represented a wide variety of different interests and viewpoints. The principles that held the Revolution together, and upon which this country has founded, have endured for over two hundred years. If we begin to allow our differenes to be more important than the basic values that might hold us together, this country is through.
I don’t want the supreme law of our land to be undermined by con artists who pander to mass ignorance and selfishness.
Even if the MPA does not pass, we will be seeing this sort of cheap pander-fest again. That scares me even more than the homophobes ever did.
An increased effort to educate the public about the Constitution (what it says, how we got it and what we’ve sacrificed to protect it) would do a lot more for real patriotism in this country than any anti-flag-burning amendment (another boondoggle, courtesy of the same crowd that brought us the MPA) ever could.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
While I am not typically an advocate of liberal Democrats’ tactics, their recent exercise of calling anti-gay Senators and quizzing them on their sex lives to “protect” marriage has been a delightfully prescient response by those who recognize the awfulness of both the amendment and the hatred behind it. It’s amusing to watch how enraged their staffers become when suddenly it’s them and theirs who are under an inappropriate microscope.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I wonder if the President has any appreciation of how foolish he looks right now?
Nobody, but nobody, on the left or right, is buying the idea that his flurry of statements — both, in terms of content, pretty silly — are anything other than a transparent political ploy to “energize the base”.
As Andrew Sullivan put it, “The first push for the FMA was a tragedy. This second time is a farce. Even its supporters know it.”
But Steve is right, in my view. I’m going to follow the Senate debate with some interest, and I’m going to watch, in particular, Senator Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, to see what, if anything, he has to say.
Senator Kohl has been absolutely silent on Wisconsin’s proposed amendment, and his silence, in marked contrast to the outspoken opposition of the Democrat leadership in the state, has been deafening.
Senator Kohl, I suppose, can wimp out on the state amendment following the absurd “logic” of the White House, which claimed, when asked why the President hadn’t spoken about the issue of same-sex marriage since the 2004 election, that nobody asked.
But he can’t evade his obligation to speak out on the PMA, and I’ll be watching.
It isn’t like Senator Kohl needs a lot of cover. The Republicans are having a hard time finding anyone credible to run against him, and his flank was well covered by Wisconsin’s other Senator, Russ Feingold, who unabashedly endorsed same-sex marriage last month.
posted by Ed Brown on
Last time this “farce” went on; my MN US Senator Mark Dayton spoke out boldy against the amendment; stating a rather libertarian notion that the government should not be involved in the marriage business at all.
posted by Scott on
As a lifelong Republican I am disgusted and frustrated by President Bush’s decision to so clearly pander to a group of bigots cloaked in religious attire. At the same time I am a realist about these issues. Let’s be honest – if the Democrats could gain traction from dragging up racism at every turn they would and have. If the Dems could make every single instance where a woman loses a high profile job about sexism they would and have. It’s important to keep things in perspective. We should be pushing for civil unions because, at this moment in time, that’s the most viable option. I blame part of this situation on San Francisco Mayor Newsom and others who broke the law and issued marriage licenses. I know that sounds harsh but I also know that much of middle America was completely turned off by it. And they are the folks we need to win over if marriage is to ever come to pass. Today’s youngsters will be tomorrow’s leaders in middle America. Reaching them can make the difference. What Bush and others do now will not matter.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
He’s your guy, Scott. You’ve covered for him, cheered for the team, bashed the alternatives, and refused to drive change. You created him, nurtured him, strengthened him and empowered him. Now it’s your turn to enjoy him, and hopefully take some responsibility for your decisions which helped contribute to the present situation.
posted by Attmay on
Why not ban straight marriage? The same weak arguments used in defense of banning gay marriage could be used to argue to ban straight marriage.
posted by Scott on
Sorry, NEL, I don’t accept your premise. Therefore, I don’t accept “responsibility” for creating George W. Bush. I believe the millions and millions of people who voted for him in two different elections are collectively to blame, so to speak. Yes, I have bashed the so-called alternatives because they aren’t plausible or even potentially acceptable. Sorry, but the Libertarians aren’t cutting it. So, until YOU can create the perfect candidate who says everything you want him or her to say and makes every single decision in YOUR best interest, I’d say you’re SOL. My team is the GOP, no question about it. But that doesn’t mean I completely and wholeheartedly agree with all of its positions. You are a very peculiar and odd person for demanding such purity of others. But then, when your own party is no more important than a knat I suppose you can be that cynical. I can differ with my president (and yes he is mine and yours too) and still have a large number of things I can agree with him about. The same is true for the Republican Party in general. If, by some miracle, the Libertarians attain power, I will look forward to bitching and whining as much as you do now. Then we’ll see how much pitching YOU do for YOUR team jerk.
posted by martind on
Gee, Scott, the other day you were whining about somebody responding to your comment without your permission, or something. Now you call NE Libertarian — someone whose posts make a lot more sense than yours do — a “jerk.”
You’re a real classy act.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
All I’ve got to say to you, Scott, is that children often have difficulty accepting responsibility for the messes they create. Did you really think that your tortured, unprincipled trade-offs like “I don’t value marriage rights more than national security” wouldn’t have consequences?
You might as well have invited Bush to pass the amendment with such positions. It’s a bit late to complain about him now that you’ve built him up to his present level. You cannot blame me, Libertarians, Democrats, or anyone other than yourself.
posted by raj on
Further to NEL’s comment (June 7, 2006, 3:09am) I’ll merely point out that Scotty’s beloved Republican party wasted and is wasting valuable time on issues such as gay marriage and flag burning, while ignoring issues that Scotty claimed to be interested in: national security and social security privatization.
The Republicans have never shown a serious interest in national security, social security privatization (the Bushies never submitted a proposal) or even a balanced budget. One might seriously ask Scotty why he takes the seriously. Is it because of their rhetoric? Scotty should try taking rhetoric to the bank, and see what the teller does with it.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“The Republicans have never shown a serious interest in national security”
This is definitely true. Just take a dispassionate look at the lead-up to 9/11 and the repeated warnings which the administration ignored from the prior administration, the CIA, the FBI, foreign intelligence agencies, and even the media. Their entire response to the looming threat prior to 9/11 was pulling John Ashcroft off of flying commercial airliners in August 2001. They didn’t even bother to ensure that the Air Force was on sufficient alert to shoot down hijacked planes, should it have become necessary.
Now I’m not surprised — government rarely delivers on its promises or even makes a competent effort — but to claim that security is even a priority of the Republican party is just hilarious.
“Scotty should try taking rhetoric to the bank”
I imagine he has a poster on his wall ala X-Files. . . a big photograph of Fearless Leader with the subtitle “I WANT TO BELIEVE.”
posted by Lori Heine on
I don’t put any stock in the conspiracy theories of the crazies who believe Bush & Company were behind the 9-11 attacks. But given the way they’ve shamelessly milked the tragedy for all its worth ever since it happened, it isn’t too nuts to argue that they felt they had no incentive to prevent it.
After all, they’ve simply blamed it on Clinton — just as they and their nitwit base have blamed Clinton for everything else but smallpox and sunspots.
I think there were people in the Bush White House who were overjoyed to see 9-11 happen. “Now we’ve really got ’em,” I can just hear them crowing. “Now we can get America to do whatever we want!”
If you disagree with me, given the fact that this is indeed exactly how they’ve behaved, the burden of proof is on you.
If the Democrats had any sense, they’d make national security their #1 priority and come up with an intelligent plan of their own regarding this. Of course, that’s a very big “if.”
posted by Anthony on
You know something Lori – you need to “come out” and admit to being a big ole liberal Democrat. Your constant whining certainly suggests that you’re at one with the Hillary Clintons and Nancy Pelosis of the world (in that all three of you are, shall we say, pushy women). There is no burden of proof on those of us who are Republican. You and NEL love to make arguments and then say if anyone disagrees with you they must prove you wrong. Too bad for you. I only look at your comments as the rantings of a sad, pathetic attempt at salving some personal issues you apparently cannot overcome. I will pray for you. 🙂
posted by Anthony on
Actually, Lori is quite a bit more conservative than you, Anthony.
My grandfather, a longtime proud conservative who most likely predates you by several years, believes in the values of self-reliance, hard work, independent thought, and analysis. He doesn’t believe in sticking with a failed policy, procedure, ideology or leader. He stakes his vote and his life on his principles. He turns his back on infantile insults as a substitute for rational responses.
You’re not really a conservative, and he certainly wouldn’t view you as one. You’re just a useful idiot for an agenda which ultimately will result in the destruction of the conservative ideology in America and its replacement with a big-government, expansionist, militaristic socialism in conservative drag.
The irony is, as Bush drives the country off a cliff with his big-spending big-government ways, you’ll continue insisting that advocates of small, limited government must be “liberal Democrats.” And you’ll still be as toxic and unpleasant a person as you evidently are now.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Not sure why the 3:31 message is signed as “Anthony,” it was me. How bizarre is that? Perhaps a site bug?
posted by Darren on
I agree with Scott’s first comment from 6:08.
The hatefest in response? Not so much.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
In Republicania (a bizarre parallel universe), disagreeing with Republicans is “hatred,” but calling for laws against gays, bombings of civilians, and violation of the constitution against disliked groups is not.
posted by Lori Heine on
Anthony, you are a very insecure little boy. What gives you away? Other, you mean, than standard, sock-job, phony-John-Wayne code words like “whining” and “pushy women?”
Of course, there is the usual, irrational terror of Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, along with a use of the word “liberal” that is every bit as intelligent and well-reasoned as a two-year-old’s use of the name “poopyhead.”
My Mom can beat your dad up, Anthony. And you know what else? Your mother wears Army boots!
What sort of a coward attacks people like that on the comment board of a blog? Probably the sort of Casper Milquetoast who hasn’t got the gumption God gave a flea in real life.
And thanks SO much for promising to pray for me. That gives me a really warm, glowy feeling inside.