One Down, One to Go
I like the headline of the New York Times editorial this morning.Now that the Republican leaders in the Senate have finished wasting the nation's time over a constitutional ban on gay marriage, we're bracing for Act Two of the culture-war circus that the White House is staging to get out the right-wing vote this fall.
Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, plans to continue to set aside work on pressing issues facing the country to vote on yet another unworthy constitutional amendment - a prohibition on burning the American flag.
If the gay marriage amendment was a pathetic attempt to change the subject in an election year, the flag-burning proposal is simply ridiculous. At least there actually is a national debate about marriage, and many thousands of gay couples want to wed. Flag burning is an issue that exists only for the purpose of pandering to a tiny slice of voters. Supporters of the amendment cannot point to a single instance of anti-American flag burning in the last 30 years. The video images that the American Legion finds so offensive to veterans and other Americans are either of Vietnam-era vintage or from other countries.
No shit. I could write or call my Senators again, but both have made their position clear within the last six months and are co-sponsors of the Senate bill.
However, the so-called federal marraige amendment failed to achieve cloture yesterday, meaning that the amendment couldn't be called brought to the floor for an up-or-down vote. And that's a good thing. (Good that it is over, at the very least.)
Sen. Gregg (Favorite Son 1-NH) voted against cloture this time although I expected him to vote for it like he did last time. Gregg and Sununu (Favorite Son 2-NH) tend to split votes this way. Apparently, some neuron fired and he remembered that Republicans were proponents of federalism. Gregg said that in 2004, he believed the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in that state would undermine the prerogatives of other states, like his, to prohibit such unions.
"Fortunately, such legal pandemonium has not ensued," Gregg said in a statement. "The past two years have shown that federalism, not more federal laws, is a viable and preferable approach."
The recent debate about a similar amendment for the NH constitution was probably in his mind, too. The possibility that it might succeed, someday, that is.
Also, my favorite bit from this article is this exchange."The Republican leadership is asking us to spend time writing bigotry into the Constitution," said Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, which legalized gay marriage in 2003. "A vote for it is a vote against civil unions, against domestic partnership, against all other efforts for states to treat gays and lesbians fairly under the law."
In response, Hatch fumed: "Does he really want to suggest that over half of the United States Senate is a crew of bigots?"
You said it, Orrin. I didn't.
I was listening to On Point yesterday and got to listen to the Reverend Eugene Rivers who, among other things, is associated with Georgie's faith-based initiatives office and has been a strong proponent of the so-called federal marriage amendment talk about how gay marriage supporters have hijacked the civil rights movement and, um, therefore they aren't supposed to be using it against Georgie's wise and just amendment to protect families.
Now there's an argument I haven't heard in, oh, decades. To hear Rev. Rivers talk about the civil rights movement--excuse me, of course, I meant The Amazing Civil Rights Struggle By Black People Against The Terrible Atrocity Of Slavery In America Perpetrated By The White People*--he tries to make a philosophical and historical argument that gay rights advocates have no business using those words. Why, only their struggle can be correctly called a civil rights struggle. (Except when Georgie's boys point out that marriage "protection" is a civil rights issue. For frightened married hets who are seeing their unions crumble, I say, crumble before their eyes.)
The entire argument was a tactic of marginalization, of course, and it's amazing that time was actually spent on it. When the host pressed him on the point of why the amendment was a good idea, the good Rev. fell back to the old biological argument. You see, boys and girls can become "one flesh" and produce babies. That's why marriage is special and has to be protected in the Constitution.
So, fine, as soon you are willing to pass a law that mandates divorce by age 50 and punishes childless marriages with full repayment of federal, state and local benefits, with interest and penalties at that time--with IRS-style confiscation tactics, if necessary--I'll believe you're honest about protecting child production, excuse me, marriage. Until then, hands off my Constitution.
* Note: I am not diminishing the seriousness, importance and ongoing nature of anyone's civil rights stuggle, only the way that argument is being presented in this context. You don't get to co-opt a noun because you think that that noun should only apply to your struggle. A civil rights lawyer, activist and daughter of a Holocaust survivor (whose name I forget--citabria knows her) who called into the show to upbraid the Rev. pointed out, quite correctly, that you can't compare atrocities. They are all atrocious and should be fought against.
Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, plans to continue to set aside work on pressing issues facing the country to vote on yet another unworthy constitutional amendment - a prohibition on burning the American flag.
If the gay marriage amendment was a pathetic attempt to change the subject in an election year, the flag-burning proposal is simply ridiculous. At least there actually is a national debate about marriage, and many thousands of gay couples want to wed. Flag burning is an issue that exists only for the purpose of pandering to a tiny slice of voters. Supporters of the amendment cannot point to a single instance of anti-American flag burning in the last 30 years. The video images that the American Legion finds so offensive to veterans and other Americans are either of Vietnam-era vintage or from other countries.
No shit. I could write or call my Senators again, but both have made their position clear within the last six months and are co-sponsors of the Senate bill.
However, the so-called federal marraige amendment failed to achieve cloture yesterday, meaning that the amendment couldn't be called brought to the floor for an up-or-down vote. And that's a good thing. (Good that it is over, at the very least.)
Sen. Gregg (Favorite Son 1-NH) voted against cloture this time although I expected him to vote for it like he did last time. Gregg and Sununu (Favorite Son 2-NH) tend to split votes this way. Apparently, some neuron fired and he remembered that Republicans were proponents of federalism. Gregg said that in 2004, he believed the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in that state would undermine the prerogatives of other states, like his, to prohibit such unions.
"Fortunately, such legal pandemonium has not ensued," Gregg said in a statement. "The past two years have shown that federalism, not more federal laws, is a viable and preferable approach."
The recent debate about a similar amendment for the NH constitution was probably in his mind, too. The possibility that it might succeed, someday, that is.
Also, my favorite bit from this article is this exchange."The Republican leadership is asking us to spend time writing bigotry into the Constitution," said Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, which legalized gay marriage in 2003. "A vote for it is a vote against civil unions, against domestic partnership, against all other efforts for states to treat gays and lesbians fairly under the law."
In response, Hatch fumed: "Does he really want to suggest that over half of the United States Senate is a crew of bigots?"
You said it, Orrin. I didn't.
I was listening to On Point yesterday and got to listen to the Reverend Eugene Rivers who, among other things, is associated with Georgie's faith-based initiatives office and has been a strong proponent of the so-called federal marriage amendment talk about how gay marriage supporters have hijacked the civil rights movement and, um, therefore they aren't supposed to be using it against Georgie's wise and just amendment to protect families.
Now there's an argument I haven't heard in, oh, decades. To hear Rev. Rivers talk about the civil rights movement--excuse me, of course, I meant The Amazing Civil Rights Struggle By Black People Against The Terrible Atrocity Of Slavery In America Perpetrated By The White People*--he tries to make a philosophical and historical argument that gay rights advocates have no business using those words. Why, only their struggle can be correctly called a civil rights struggle. (Except when Georgie's boys point out that marriage "protection" is a civil rights issue. For frightened married hets who are seeing their unions crumble, I say, crumble before their eyes.)
The entire argument was a tactic of marginalization, of course, and it's amazing that time was actually spent on it. When the host pressed him on the point of why the amendment was a good idea, the good Rev. fell back to the old biological argument. You see, boys and girls can become "one flesh" and produce babies. That's why marriage is special and has to be protected in the Constitution.
So, fine, as soon you are willing to pass a law that mandates divorce by age 50 and punishes childless marriages with full repayment of federal, state and local benefits, with interest and penalties at that time--with IRS-style confiscation tactics, if necessary--I'll believe you're honest about protecting child production, excuse me, marriage. Until then, hands off my Constitution.
* Note: I am not diminishing the seriousness, importance and ongoing nature of anyone's civil rights stuggle, only the way that argument is being presented in this context. You don't get to co-opt a noun because you think that that noun should only apply to your struggle. A civil rights lawyer, activist and daughter of a Holocaust survivor (whose name I forget--citabria knows her) who called into the show to upbraid the Rev. pointed out, quite correctly, that you can't compare atrocities. They are all atrocious and should be fought against.