IGF CultureWatch

Reports Bob Roehr in the Windy City Times, on a recent assertion by Human Rights Campaign President Cheryl Jacques:

"We are casting this, as are our enemies, that this is absolutely a vote on the FMA, this is not a procedural vote, this is a substantive vote," Jacques said at a July 6 telephone news conference. "It isn't just about narrowly defeating this measure, it's about winning soundly, sending a clear message to the House and to the states [considering state constitutional amendments] that discrimination is wrong."

When asked whether Sen. John Kerry, the presidential candidate they have endorsed, will be present to vote on this measure, Jacques strongly asserted, "He will be there."

Roehr then quotes campaign spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter saying Kerry would not be participating in the FMA debate or vote because he'd be "in Boston 'preparing' for the Democratic convention."

Kerry/Edwards were the only two senators not to vote on the amendment.

From Libertarian Party presidential candidate Michael Badnarik, as posted on the LP's website:

"When two people say 'I do,' the government has no business saying: 'Oh no you don't!' -- says Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik.

"The only reason that marriage licenses even exist is that state and local governments once mandated them as a way to enforce laws against interracial marriage," he said. "In other times and places, marriage licenses were denied to interracial or other politically incorrect couples, just as they can be denied to gay couples today."

As long as any governmental group -- federal, state or local -- controls marriage, controversy will erupt, Badnarik pointed out, because politicians will always have something to gain by favoring one group over another.

The Libertarian solution: Turn decisions on marriage over to "a higher authority" -- namely, churches, other voluntary organizations and individuals.

If your option is not voting, he's an alternative.

They couldn't even get a majority for cloture. Final vote, 48-50. Three Democrats voted for the marriage ban amendment (including extreme homophobe Robert Byrd of W. Va.), while six Republicans crossed party lines to vote it down.

The very conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page, surprisingly, came out against the amendment. Along with Lynne Cheney's apostasy, it's evidence of further cracks on the right.

The only two senators not voting: Kerry and Edwards. The AP daybook placed Kerry at home in Boston -- not on the campaign trail, but not showing up in the Senate to vote on a proposed constitutional amendment. The great gay hope? Puleeeze.

Not voting may prove to have been a poor idea. Kerry's big problem is being seen as a waffler who tries to have it both ways -- voting for the war then against funding it, etc. Now add to the list that he opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment but not enough to vote against it. It's a matter of principle, and Kerry is principle-deficient. But his strategists no doubt took a narrower view, surmising there'd be no gain from voting against the ban (the gay vote is sown up tighter than a drum), and no pain for not voting against it. The politics of the free ride triumphs again.

I often hear, why do you hold Kerry to such a higher standard than the Republicans (in language not so polite). The reason is that we as a community are giving Kerry our money, labor and votes, that's why! If you buy a car from dealer A, you expect to have the car delivered. You kind of expect that dealer B across the street won't be giving you a car. But if dealer A fails to follow through, or provides a cheaper model (he figures he can get away with it because, in fact, dealer B doesn't much like your kind), you still have a right to feel cheated.

CNN reports:

Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona broke forcefully with President Bush and the Senate GOP leadership Tuesday evening over the issue of same-sex marriage, taking to the Senate floor to call a constitutional amendment to prohibit the practice unnecessary -- and un-Republican.

"The constitutional amendment we're debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans," McCain said. "It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states do not believe confronts them."

Out with a Wimper.

So the Bush-backed anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment sailed toward its doom in the Senate, where GOP mismanagers at the last minute, and to no avail, tried to increase its appeal by removing a clause that would ban "marriage or the incidents thereof" (i.e., domestic partnerships and civil unions). They thus succeeded in angering the religious right (which has held that "marriage by another name" must also be banned) in addition to driving away the 1 million gay votes Bush garnered in 2000.

This isn't the end. House Republicans vow to bring up the amendment and possibly other anti-gay legislation before the election. And Senate majority leader Bill Frist insists that the measure will be back in his chamber for another vote. Split the party, burn the big tent, drive out moderates -- all worth it to prevent gay equality under the law.

Because the amendment died in a "procedural" vote, Kerry/Edwards will get a free ride for not voting. They had interrupted their campaigns in the past to vote on issues vital to what they consider their key constituencies in need of courting -- labor, Hispanics, etc. Shouldn't that tell gay activists something? Dream on.

Tuesday's Wall Street Journal has a powerful op-ed against the Federal Marriage Amendment by esteemed University of Chicago law professor Richard A. Epstein, titled "Live and Let Live: A constitutional libertarian's case for same-sex marriage" (it's online only for WSJ subscribers). Epstein writes:

When President Bush, for example, talks about the need to "protect" the sanctity of marriage, his plea is a giant non sequitur because he does not explain what, precisely, he is protecting marriage against. No proponent of gay marriage want to ban traditional marriage, or to burden couples who want to marry with endless tests, taxes and delays. All gay-marriage advocates want to do is to enjoy the same rights of association that are held by other people.

But Epstein doesn't let leftist activists off the hook, either, citing their clear double standards:

on associational freedoms, the American left has become far more statist in rejecting freedom of association claims in the Boy Scout and campaign finance cases. Its support for gay marriage, therefore, looks opportunistic because it refuses to apply the same standard of free assocaion to economic legislation for fear of what it will do to unions and their fiefdoms.

In its own way, the moral left is as authoritarian as the moral right. Judged against the left's own fractured standard, the conservative criticisms of judicial activism hit the mark. But the conservatives' plea for democratic federalism in defense of traditional values, and then for a constitutional amendment, is wholly misguided. Restore individual liberty to center state, and this state restriction on same-sex marriages fails to the ground with the same speed as the full panoply of employment regulations, and the extension of antidiscrimiation laws into ordinary social and religious affairs.

Read the whole thing if you can.

The Vote Approaches.

The Senate's Federal Marriage Amendment vote, expected on Wednesday, is being held so Republicans can identify and bludgeon Democrats who vote against a national ban on same-sex marriage (and presumably against civil unions, too, given the amendment's ambiguous language about "marriage or the incidents thereof"). But a silver lining is the opportunity it affords us to identify Republicans willing to buck their party's now-dominant theocratic wing, as well as those Democrats who take our money and votes, and give nothing but empty rhetoric in return.

The amendment won't come close to the two-thirds needed, but will it obtain over 50 votes in a Senate split nearly evenly between the parties? We'll soon see.

Update: The AP is reporting, "Kerry, Edwards May Not Vote on Marriage." I suspect enough pressure will be brought to bear that they show up; if it's not, and they don't, then the foot lickers over at the Human Rights Campaign should be run out of town on a rail.

Lynne Cheney has gone out on a limb by publicly stating that gay marriage should be left to the states -- thereby distancing herself from the Bush administration's call for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage nationwide.

The Cheneys, of course, have an openly lesbian daughter in a long-term relationship. Four years ago, then-VP candidate Dick Cheney said that states should decide legal issues about personal relationships and that people should be free to enter relationships of their choosing. But under pressure, this year he's been loyally toeing the Bush line in favor of a constitutional ban.

On Sunday, when asked by CNN about her husband's stand on gay marriage in 2004, Lynne Cheney said:

I thought that the formulation he used in 2000 was very good. First of all, to be clear that people should be free to enter into their relationships that they choose. And, secondly, to recognize what's historically been the situation, that when it comes to conferring legal status on relationships, that is a matter left to the states.

The Senate is expected to vote on the marriage amendment this week. No matter how carefully she chose her words, Lynne Cheney's remarks are a rebuke to the President's anti-gay marriage crusade and may embolden some GOP moderates to break ranks and oppose the amendment. Her remarks also indicate there may still be some intelligent life left in the Republican Party when it comes to social issues.

More Recent Postings
7/04/04 - 7/10/04

As reported in the New York Times, in a recent e-mail religious right activist and GOP insider Paul Weyrich had this to say about the impact of the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment on his party:

As for the gay Republicans whose votes Mr. Bush might then lose, Mr. Weyrich wrote, "Good riddance."

Here's an excerpt from President Bush's Saturday radio address.

A great deal is at stake in this matter. For ages, in every culture, human beings have understood that traditional marriage is critical to the well-being of families. ... And changing the definition of traditional marriage will undermine the family structure.

But note this observation from conservative pundit Robert Novak in his July 10 column in the New York Post:

Moderate GOP senators grumble that some longtime contributors are refusing their usual donation to the Republican presidential campaign. Their biggest grievance: Bush's endorsement of the anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment.

What once looked merely like a Bush/Rove ploy to rouse the conservative base now increasingly seems like an obsession, to be pursued all out despite certain failure in the Senate and the loss of moderate and independent votes and dollars.

In Wednesday's Washington Post, the group Campaign to Protect the Constitution ran a nearly full-page ad urging defeat of the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment, signed by a number of presidential offspring: Ron Reagan; Jack, Chip, Jeff & Amy Carter; Lynda Johnson Robb & Luci Baines Johnson; and Anna Eleanor Roosevelt (granddaughter of FDR and Eleanor). But where is Chelsea? Not among those willing to take a stand when it matters, apparently. Looks like it runs in the family.

Meanwhile, the anti-gay ex-gays at Exodus International are running a pro-amendment newspaper ad, which can be downloaded if you've a fast Internet connection -- and a strong stomach. It features a beaming mixed-gender couple, with the man proclaiming: "By finding my way out of a gay identity, I found the love of my life in the process. Gay marriage would only have blinded me to such an incredible joy." But catch his expression -- it's as downright eerie and 'unnatural' as any I've ever seen.

From the Blogsphere.

Tim Hulsey, a gay conservative whose blog is My Stupid Dog, responds convincingly to a charge that the gay male esthetic is inevitably linked to fascism (a smear that anti-gays like to hurl every once in a while).

And blogger KipEsquire (he signs it as one name), in an item titled Heather Needs Two Therapists, takes on anti-gay conservative Maggie Gallagher's latest hit piece, wherein she finds an adult child raised by gay parents who is very, very bitter (and, of course, extrapolates this ludicrously to all children raised by gay parents, as if there were never any unhappy, hetero raised offspring!).

Our Mailbag.

We've posted a new batch of letters, including a look at the folly of trying to reason with unreasonable conservatives, and a gay libertarian's take on Michael Moore. Check 'em out.

I don't like John Edwards, the Democrats' newly anointed VP nominee-to-be. Edwards is a shill for rapacious trial lawyers and an advocate of bigger government spending programs and more regulation by Washington bureaucracies, higher taxes on job and wealth producers and on stock market investments that grow the economy, and a vocal supporter of protectionist trade tariffs. So of course the GOP goes and immediately attacks Edwards for one thing I do approve of -- his support for legal equality (if short of actual marriage) for gays.

The Republican National Committee's website castigates Edward for opposing the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment, opposing the Defense of Marriage Act, and saying states should decide civil union status. But that's just for starters; the RNC then laces into Edwards for opposing sodomy laws!

According to the RNC site, "Edwards doesn't share the priorities of American families" because:

Edwards Believes In Right To Privacy When It Comes To State Sodomy Laws

EDWARDS: "I believe there is a fundamental right to privacy. I do not believe the government belongs in people's bedrooms. I think that applies to both gay and lesbian couples and heterosexual couples." (Sen. John Edwards, Remarks At Democrat Presidential Candidates Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/3/03)

Clearly, the RNC thinks this is damning, and it conveys that the Bush campaign does not believe in privacy among consenting adults within one's bedroom -- if there was any doubt about that.