Frankly, this looks like a tempest in a teapot. With everything going on at this time, why the emphasis on this? I figure I’m fairly conservative, but there’s no way I’d vote for an amendment - in fact, I’d vote against it. It’s not needed, it’s not appropriate at this time, and it’d be bad law, IMHO.

J.

Posted by: JLL3 at July 13, 2004 08:16 AM

..sorry to disagree. Its more about the underlining lack of moral responsibility that has the line drawn in the sand. Just because this life style is ok for some; its loathed by the vast majority.So now the (push) is going to make people take sides and laws are going to be made..

Posted by: Rob_NC at July 13, 2004 08:47 AM

Loathed? Kind of strong, IMO. Not thought about by the majority, I think, unless it’s shoved in your face. Personally, I think the massive activism right now is a counterproductive strategy.

But hey, I know how I’ll vote on this - and your mileage may vary.

J.

Posted by: JLL3 at July 13, 2004 09:29 AM

It’s a wedge issue the entire gay marriage thing can wedge a bunch of otherwise democratic voters over the the republican side.

There are two dynamics at work, IMHO. First, the issue of gay marriage itself. Like any other issue in our great country there are people all across the spectrum, but I doubt gay marriage is a big seller in most American households.

Next, the issue of judicial activism rears its head. Gay marriage isn’t coming about because the rank and file want it, it’s being imposed by the unaccountable and extremely liberal courts. Couple this with the treatment of Bush’s nominee’s and voila, Wedge issue numbah two.

Posted by: skip at July 13, 2004 10:25 AM

This is going to cost him swing votes however, i ‘WOULD’ vote Bush this election if not for this issue and stem cell research. I despise Kerry for his weak stance on the WoT. But Bush is trying way too hard to please hardline conservatives and its going to cost him big if he keeps it up. Its not like they arent going to vote for him if he doesnt push the amendment forward for christsakes, look at what thier options are!

He should focus his entire compaign on national defense against terrorism and the economy, this ‘morality’ bullshit is such a nonissue its sickening. But the extremist of the GoP eat this crap up, leaving the rest of us screaming ‘get back on track dammit!’.

Posted by: Ronin at July 13, 2004 10:28 AM

Just a thought.
Why don’t we all go and read the Christian Marriage service. CoE, Roman Catholic, Episcopalian.
Briefly summarised :

Marriage is a gift of God in creation through which husband and wife may know the grace of God. It is given that as man and woman grow together in love and trust, they shall be united with one another in heart, body and mind, as Christ is united with his bride, the Church.

The gift of marriage brings husband and wife together in the delight and tenderness of sexual union and joyful commitment to the end of their lives. It is given as the foundation of family life in which children are [born and] nurtured and in which each member of the family, in good times and in bad, may find strength, companionship and comfort, and grow to maturity in love.

You cannot meet those commitments or intentions in a homosexual relationship. So I would state that the word Marriage cannot be used in a same sex ceremony.

This is not to say that civil society may not offer the same legal and tax priviliges to a same sex couple who wish to publicly contract together in or towards a lasting relationship . I wish them all happiness, but it can’t be a mariage!!

Posted by: max at July 13, 2004 11:02 AM

Andrew Sullivan once summed up his philosophy this way. He stated that he was a social libertarian, a fiscal conservative and a foreign policy hawk.

I think that’s a pretty accurate assesment of many conservatives, but not all of them.

bush, by backing the FMA, is not pandering to the hard right, he’s doing what he always does: he’s acting on his beliefs.

For myself I understand the concern that many have about gay marriage, I also understand that gay people would like to have the same “advantages” that marriage brings. Is there a middle road? I don’t know but I know that for some single issue voters this is a biggie.

While I don’t give much thought the to gay marriage issue, I can’t imagine Bush’s position on this swaying my vote. Just as I’m not really enamored of his domestic agenda I still think he’s a great president and I will vote for him gladly.

Posted by: skip at July 13, 2004 11:09 AM

I think Bush has taken a gamble - throw some red meat to the religious right wing of the party to shore up support and “get out the vote” and hope that those in Republican Party who are opposed to the amendment won’t walk away from him over this one thing. The fact that it’s unlikely to pass, I think, adds to the attractiveness of the gamble. I doubt this issue is going to swing Democrat centrists to the Republican party in great enough numbers to warrant the risk.

I also agree that it’s probably something he really believes in, but as I’ve said to many who seek to defend marriage, he’d get better results by going after no-fault divorce laws than gay marriage.

Posted by: DGO at July 13, 2004 11:53 AM

I think its time to stop analyzing Bush’s actions through the prism of Clinton’s jaded politics.

While the Clintons definitely judged their actions based on political outcomes, I beleive that Bush tends to go with what he believes to be right.

It’s scary sometimes but I rarely chalk up Bush’s decisions to some sort of cynical political calculus.

Posted by: skip at July 13, 2004 12:35 PM

It is not just a religious issue.

It is also a legal, financial, and constitutional one.

Financially, what will survivor benefits for programs such as Social Security, Veterans benefits, etc. cost?

Legally, what barrier remains to consensual polygamy and polyamory? If man and woman does not equal marriage, why does it have to be limited to two people? Isn’t polygamy merely a lifestyle choice that is none of your damned business? Becuase there is no enhanced genetic risk for male/male incest, can I now marry my nephew? If so, can I pass to him my Veterans benefits?

What is to stop me from using marriage as a tax-planning convenience to pass on benefits to another man — especially if I am elderly and planning to leave property to a same sex heir?

I am also worried about what the implications are for religious institutions that do good — such as Catholic schools and hospitals. Many Catholic insitutions have morals clauses in their contracts (Catholic employees are expected to uphold the teachings of the church, and homsexuality is sometimes a cause for dismissal.) Will Catholic schools now be forced to accept a gay, married teacher because the state has permitted gay marriage?

From a constitutional point of view, will the “full faith and credit clause” now be employed to insist on recognition of gay marriage in all 50 states? If so, does not the Constitution need to be amended?

It is really not as simple as saying “you are a right wing, homophobe bigot.” These types of issues need to be addressed in the legislatures.

Posted by: DWC at July 13, 2004 01:19 PM

I think DWC makes some good points.

RE: Financial Cost - I’ve seen some analyses that suggest it will actually generate more revenue for the Fed gov’t via the “marriage penalty”.

RE: Incest/Bigamy - I think that most “slippery slope” arguments like incest and bestiality can be addressed by consent and genetic harm. Bigamy is definitely more complicated. But I don’t see how allowing gay marriage autmoatically gives them a free pass or sets a precedent. The case in put forward by the MA Department of Health in Goodrich just didn’t convince the SJC that there was any public harm. It will be up to these other folks to show that they don’t either and it’s not clear to me that they can.

RE: Tax Benefits - what’s to stop (or has stopped) straight couples from doing that now? I don’t see how allowing gay marriage will effect that. I don’t see how two men wanting to marry will have a different (or lesser) standard applied to them to discover their true intentions.

RE: Morals Clauses - I’d be interested in looking into previous decisions on their ability to exclude hiring based on gender, race or sexual orientation. If they can exclude single gay persons I don’t see how their being married would effect that.

RE: Full Faith and Credit - that’s a good question. From analyses I’ve seen, my understanding is that it has not been applied to marriage laws in the past.

I definitely agree with the last two statements. People who don’t support gay marriage aren’t automatically bigots. And this issue should be decided by the States - assuming that by pluralizing legislature you mean States and not the Federal Goverment. ;-)

Posted by: DGO at July 13, 2004 02:05 PM

DGO,

Good points.

On the financial cost, I had not considered the marriage penalty angle. I guess we need a tax accountant. :-)

On polygamy, I think that it comes in pretty quickly. After all, there is a major world religion (Islam) that permits it, and a minor (but not incosequential one) which while it currently no longer supports it, has done so in the past (Latter Day Saints). I think it will be hard for a judge to disregard this when the lawyer makes the case that if a form of marriage that has never been supported by history (gay marriage) is permitted, then ones that have a history of successful practice (polygamy) ought to be accepted, also. And if you accept hetero polygamy, and accept homosexual monogamy, then you pretty rapidly get to multi-sex, multi-party marriages. Slippery slope? Yes, but just because it is identified as such doesn’t mean it ain’t real. :-) Sometimes the slope really is slippery.

Tax Benefits: I’m sure that it does happen now. Just not sure I want to open up more loopholes, though. :-)

Morals clauses: My understanding is that the church has won on this in the past if it was properly stated in the contract up front. Which is not to say it won’t be revisited.

Full Faith and Credit: my understanding is that while is has not been used this way in the past (state rules vs. types of marriages (such as age of consent, etc.) have generally not been the subject of these lawsuits); I am sure that it will be litigated.

Re: the states: I generally agree that marriage is the prerogative of states to decide. It needs to remain so, and the full faith and credit clause is a potentially fatal loophole. We could otherwise have Massachusetts deciding for all 50 states.

Posted by: DWC at July 13, 2004 03:37 PM

Marriage is a state issue. Only the Full Faith and Credit problem would justify an amendment. I don’t see what the rush is, when there has yet to be a single court decision that FFC is required. Looks like political opportunism to beat up on an unpopular minority group to me.

Posted by: rdelephant at July 13, 2004 07:14 PM

If you open the door to multiple sex marriages, etc., you will eventually arrive at Underage Children in relationships (consensual or not) with adults.

Why not? It is just as “legal” as any of the other things mentioned.

Posted by: leaddog2 at July 13, 2004 09:22 PM

Don’t be ignorant. It is already legal for gays to be in relationships, have sex, etc. in all 50 states. The United States Supreme Court has seen to that. Nobody is talking about changing that with this new Amendment. It would outlaw gay marriage only, not same sex civil unions, not gay relationships, not gay sex. Even if you had gay marriages, it would not open the door to child/adult marriages. One has nothing at all to do with the other.

Posted by: rdelephant at July 13, 2004 09:38 PM

If any one issue costs Bush this election it will be this one. Rove has grossly underestimated the percentage of voters that see this purely as a civil rights issue of which the Republicans are on the wrong side. The only thing Bush has going for him on this is that Kerry isn’t on the right side of it either, but he’s closer.

:jackson

Posted by: jackson zed at July 13, 2004 10:30 PM

JZ,

I think you have a very valid point, although the polls generally favor Rove’s argument — which is why he is pushing it.

It is all in how the question is framed. If it is framed as

“Do you support gay marriage” the answer is something like 70% against.

If it is framed as

“Do you support amending the constitution to prevent gay couples from enjoying the same rights as heterosexual couples?”

I think you’d get 70% against this formulation, also.

I have no doubt how the major media will frame the question, which means that you may very well be correct.

I think Rove may well be playing with fire.

Posted by: DWC at July 14, 2004 09:54 AM