July 12, 2004
The Straight & Narrow
The Senate began debating the Federal Marriage Amendment after rushing it past the Senate Judiciary hearings without a complete customary review and despite the pervasive understanding that there aren’t enough votes to pass the measure. With this lack of support juxtaposed to the hysterical urgency the issue has been given, the amendment has been accused of being a political ploy.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said it was a "phony argument" to accuse the GOP of bringing the issue to a vote to make an election-year statement. Hatch then accused Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry of holding inconsistent positions on marriage."This is the grand flip-flop; one of the grandest of all times," he said. "A person's head starts to spin trying to undo the logical mess."
In typical fashion, the right seems determined to use logical fallacies to attack Kerry. In this case by asserting if Kerry believes marriage should be between a man and a woman he must therefore support an amendment to the Constitution banning gay marriage, and if he does not, he's flip-flopping.
The president has already endorsed an amendment. He has nothing to lose by this and as the thinking behind the alleged political ploy goes, he has plenty to gain. Given Senator Hatch's pronouncements, it seems obvious the Bush campaign will likely use the same argument to attack Kerry and Edwards. They will use it to portray the "values" of the Bush/Cheney ticket. They can force Democrats into potential political vulnerability by how they vote on the measure. Best of all, it is a grand emotionally charged and divisive non-issue to distract us from the more pressing issues of the economy, healthcare, education, Iraq and homeland security.
According to the National Annenberg Election Survey, gay marriage is not a pivotal issue in the election and is unlikely to effect swing voters. Regardless, another study (pdf) shows that 50% of Americans oppose an amendment banning same-sex marriage while 42% support it - despite a larger percentage of Americans opposing state legislation that would permit same-sex marriage. Neither statistic shows a strong majority or a clear mandate yet the FMA was allowed to bypass traditional review and rushed to a vote.
Without "one unified voice" from either the nation or the Senate, without proper review, and oblivious to the existence of the Defense of Marriage Act, advocates of the FMA are nonetheless hand-waving and proclaiming the end of civilization unless we act now. (Meanwhile, the Senate findings on the administration's alleged role in manipulating CIA data in it's push for invading Iraq is held back until after the election.)
Hopefully, the American public can recognize these melodramatic theatrics as the thinly veiled political ploy it really is. Maybe swing voters won't be swayed by the issue of same-sex marriage but they might be swayed by yet another GOP smoke screen.
Posted by Joseph Briggs at July 12, 2004 11:34 PMSelf-link to my more emphatic and less refined personal blog entry when the Senate Judiciary hearings started. It deals with more of the specifics of the debate.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at July 12, 2004 11:48 PMJoseph,
It is so very ironic, that earlier this evening I watched Ron Reagan Jr. on Hardball talk about his upcoming speech on stem cell research at the Democratic National Convention. Also, interviewed on the program, was a leading Republican who actually supports lifting the ban on stem cell research, but who strongly urged Ron Reagan not to make it a ‘political issue’.
That Republican? Sen. Orrin Hatch.
I also find it interesting, that the President’s latest pronouncement in support the FMA, was not videotaped for wider repeated broadcast. Instead, he used his weekly radio address. Gutless cowardice!
And, your point as to the possible reaction of swing voters to this Senate vote, begs yet another interesting question.
How will Sen. John McCain vote?
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at July 13, 2004 12:09 AMLynne Cheney, Dick Cheney’s wife, opposes the Family Marriage Amendment… much like Dick Cheney himself used to oppose the idea way way back in 2000 before he bowed to conservative political pressure and flip flopped on this issue.
I hope that Lynne Cheney’s current admirable opposition - and Dick Cheney’s cynical and cowardly flip-flop - will be cited by Democrats whenever this hateful FMA is brought up.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at July 13, 2004 01:32 AMGreat article, Joseph. You nailed this issue.
Of what are all these people who are against gay marriage truly afraid? The trite excuses they continually spew against gay marriage never address how it would actually effect society. How would it? If gays are allowed to marry, would hetero couples decide not to get married in protest? If gays married would no more children be born? Someone tell me, what would happen? Nothing would happen except the Christian right and the like minded would be incensed and take their votes from the Republicans and perhaps start their own fundamentalist (hate mongering) political party.
It all boils down to bigotry and power. All those rich (Christian) white guys do not want gays gaining power any more than they did women or blacks, of which they still only pay lip service.
Posted by: dennis mccowan at July 13, 2004 10:37 AMit seems to me that the Democrats are wasting an opportunity to turn the tables on the Bush/Cheney ticket. Cheney’s flip-flop is much more apparent than anything Kerry has ever said. And even were he to say he’s supporting the president they could paint is as him picking his job over family.
I like the fact that Lynn Cheney didn’t cowtow to the GOP and spoke as a human being with real beliefs rather than simply a robot spitting out the party line.
Thanks for bringing up Lynne Cheney, Cf (and blips). I had her in mind when writing this up, somehow missed actually putting it in.
Thanks Bert, also, for bringing up the president’s radio address. I was looking for something more recent than that Fox story, though it doesn’t seem like there’s much difference.
Orrin Hatch is a… um, complex guy. Utah in general is strange conservative brew. It’s no wonder he’s for stem cell research since he’s around that age and there’s quite a base of biotech companies in Utah.
It’s also no wonder he’s against gay marriage. The Mormon Church has been (unethically) funding legislative fights against gay marriage in a few states long before Massachusetts and San Fran brought the issue to the forefront.
It was fun to watch the awkward moments in the Judiciary hearings (in June) when Mit Romney (the governor of Mass. and another Mormon) kept bringing up polygamy to support his argument against same-sex marriage. It was brought up again Monday. Utah is extremely tolerant of polygamy which is prevalent in rural Utah.
Thanks for the kudos, AP.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at July 13, 2004 09:14 PM
