Over on BoiFromTroy’s blog, Jim comments, “I am so proud to be an Arizonan right now. It doesn’t happen very often, and I gotta hold on to that feeling whenever it comes around.” Why? Because of what John McCain said today:
“The constitutional amendment we’re debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans. 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.”
“Hells yeah! That’s our senator, baby!” Becky wrote in an e-mail to me this afternoon.
In other FMA news, Andrew Sullivan notes that if the amendment had come to a full vote, instead of dying on a procedural matter, it apparently would have been defeated even more soundly. “Up to a dozen Republicans would have voted against the measure,” Sully writes. (That would be twice as many as voted no on the cloture motion.) “It truly is a humiliation for the anti-gay forces in the GOP. Let’s hope they take this to heart - and leave the states to figure out how to accommodate gay families into American society.”
McCain is right, more or less, I think. The particular amendment language being promoted by Santorum et al was not too restrictive in my opinion (Sullivan and others argue that it would ban civil unions as well as gay marriage, but I think that’s bunk–it would deny gay marriage but states would be free to craft their own rules about civil unions). However, while the threat of activist judges needs to be addressed, McCain is right to say that “The constitutional amendment… [is] antithetical… to the core philosophy of Republicans,” and “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.” [Emphasis mine]
I agree with the Wall Street Journal that the FMA as currently constituted overreaches: “Instead of some national definition of marriage, we’d prefer an amendment that reserves issues of family law for the arena where the Founders wanted such issues handled: the American people, acting through their elected state representatives.” This would not only solve the problem of overturning the outrageous activist court decisions in Vermont and Massachusetts, it would definitely prevent any cross-state forced recognition of gay marriages that any federal bench might scheme to accomplish. And it would do all of this by reinforcing federalist principles and avoiding inserting social policy into the Constitution.
As far as the Republican Party goes, I’m not happy we chose the summer before the presidential reelection to have this battle. The president, or Rove or whoever, badly miscalculated IMO in pushing this issue so soon. Nevertheless, I agree with this AndrewSullivan.com emailer when he says,
“Whoa! Wait a second! FMA collapses because of lack of REPUBLICAN support, and you label the Republican Party as exclusionary? Yes, some in the party supported it because of a heartfelt conviction that it was the right thing to do. The FMA went to honest debate within the party, and guess what? It lost. Seems to me the Republican Party is not the scary, neo-fascist entity you make it out to be. I consider myself to be pretty conservative, and a ‘right wing’ Christian – one of your favorite whipping boys – but I did not support FMA on grounds of Federalism, and because, quite frankly, I thought it unnecessarily hostile. That being said, however, there is room for reasonable debate, and the only place where that debate could take place is the non-monolithic Republican Party. And as far as the consequences for W: Conservative Christians are not going to abandon him since, after all, he supported the amendment. He has maintained his good will with them. And I suspect that most of us out here following the debate have the intellectual integrity to understand that the point is debatable. The debate having been joined, it appears that your side won. So lighten up. Now that the light has faded from this sideshow, let’s get back to where this election should be fought – who will best prosecute the war on terror. Hint: It ain’t John Kerry.”
The only thing the emailer overlooked is the extent to which gay Republicans and moderates will abandon the president this fall. While I still agree that the war on terrorism is the overarching issue which should define the election, nevertheless I can’t blame the defectors too much for abandoning the president when the political maneuvering behind pushing the FMA was so ill-timed and seemed especially designed to provoke their hostility and alienation. I only hope the president wins anyways, or better yet, that the Democrats suffer equally because of the defection of more blacks and Hispanics. [Fingers crossed]
Sorry, I can’t help quoting more of the WSJ’s wise editorial:
For his part, Mr. Bush has been accused of using the issue for campaign purposes, and no doubt he is listening to his conservative base. But let’s remember who made this a national issue. That was done by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, the Massachusetts Supreme Court and others who put their own personal agendas above current laws. It is revealing that in no case has gay marriage been sanctioned by a legislature, and that the courts, both federal and state, are filled with similar activist litigation.
This path, moreover, has been marked by disingenuousness all the way through. In last year’s Lawrence sodomy case, U.S. Supreme Court Justices assured us that it had no implications for gay marriage. But scarcely had the ink dried than the Massachusetts high court was invoking Lawrence to mandate gay marriage. Only a few years back, John Kerry attacked the Defense of Marriage Act (which was signed by Bill Clinton and says states do not have to recognize other states’ gay marriages) as “unconstitutional, unprecedented, unnecessary and mean-spirited.” Now Mr. Kerry invokes that law to justify his opposition to a constitutional amendment.
Likewise we see a number of born-again federalists, telling us to “leave it to the states.” We’re all for leaving it to the states. But most of those pushing gay marriage have no intention of doing so, at least if that means the democratic process. What they really mean is let’s stop all activity on a Constitutional amendment until the Supreme Court declares gay marriage to be a Constitutional right, in another version of Roe v. Wade.
I also really liked this WSJ opinion although I think it does intelligently side step the issue of the occasionally dubious rule a majority can impose on a minority.
Oddly, this debate reminds me of city statutes banning the sale of certain dog breeds; for example, Miami-Dade county prohibits the existence of any purebred pitbulls in the county. The decision is based solely on fear as the research has proven time and again that other breeds, such as Chow Chows and Shar-Peis are more likely to bite and/or serously injure people.
Denver had a similar clause in their city code preventing residents from owning pit bulls. The American Association of Pet Dog Trainers is having a massive four day conference in Denver and many trainers refused to attend it until the city revoked its code, which it did. Naturally, if someone is bitten by a pit bull, they might blame animal activists for introducing potentially harmful pets into a neighborhood.
The problem with this logic is that any pet can be dangerous; all dogs are predators, as are all cats. Should we prevent anyone from owning pets because of the danger one violent pet can pose to our citizenry?
The answer has been yes in many places. Property managers routinely refuse to rent to people who have pets. Pet-based businesses often have to put up their own capital for a free-standing building because real estate owners will not deal with the insurance costs of leasing to a potentially dangerous business.
How does this relate to gay marriage and the debates in the Senate? I’ll tell ya.
When unpopular breeds are shunted out of a community, they don’t cease to exist. Eliminating pit bulls in an attempt to halt dog fighting rings does not stop dog fighting. Similarly, a federal amendment against gay marriage does not stop gays and will not stop attempts to obtain gay marriages. (On a side note, I know that a few countries allow gay marriage. If gays got married there and moved here, would we have to honor that contract?) (Another side note. Could Kerry have nominated Bill Clinton to be his VP?)
Where am I going with this? Oh yeah. The point is, by eliminating a breed of animal from a certain location, you are denying people the opportunity to be responsible owners. In essence, you’re punishing everyone because of the misdeeds of a few people.
In the case of gay marriage, I feel like some in the government are relying on a whole lot of ifs in the absence of facts. When we made prohibition illegal, at least we could say that we knew that alcohol can and does have negative effects on society. But with this whole gay marriage thing, there’s simply no way to know if two married chicks will tarnish hetero marriage because hell, it doesn’t really happen with enough regularity for us to study it.
Okay, I keep losing my point. Oh yes, pit bulls are outlawed because of fear. Gay marriage is getting beat down because of a similar fear. “They” could hurt “us.”
I’m not saying that community will should be trampled on by a few loudmouthed activists. BUT, both our (state) governments have the responsibility to consider the impact of a herd mentality. After all, if we went with the herd’s feeling after 9-11, half the Middle East would be toast.
The moral of the story? Pit bulls should eat activists and a herd of wild homosexuals should trample Congress.
Far be it from me to encourage the religious right, but I think Andrew Sullivan is being a little overzealous here. Just because they didn’t get a majority shouldn’t be a “humiliation”. I don’t necessarilly agree with the gay marriage ammendmant idea, but it seems to me that just because your cause doesn’t win shouldn’t equate to humiliation. Heck if that were true lots of liberal causes should have been humiliated into giving up a long time ago.
Heh, very amusing, Becky. And some good points too. I guess I’d say that even though people “fear” pit bulls or “fear” homosexuals and thus try to ban said pit bulls or gay marriage, still some communities accept both. I think that works best: To each its own.
July 14th, 2004 at 5:33:18 pm
McCain is right, more or less, I think. The particular amendment language being promoted by Santorum et al was not too restrictive in my opinion (Sullivan and others argue that it would ban civil unions as well as gay marriage, but I think that’s bunk–it would deny gay marriage but states would be free to craft their own rules about civil unions). However, while the threat of activist judges needs to be addressed, McCain is right to say that “The constitutional amendment… [is] antithetical… to the core philosophy of Republicans,” and “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.” [Emphasis mine]
I agree with the Wall Street Journal that the FMA as currently constituted overreaches: “Instead of some national definition of marriage, we’d prefer an amendment that reserves issues of family law for the arena where the Founders wanted such issues handled: the American people, acting through their elected state representatives.” This would not only solve the problem of overturning the outrageous activist court decisions in Vermont and Massachusetts, it would definitely prevent any cross-state forced recognition of gay marriages that any federal bench might scheme to accomplish. And it would do all of this by reinforcing federalist principles and avoiding inserting social policy into the Constitution.
As far as the Republican Party goes, I’m not happy we chose the summer before the presidential reelection to have this battle. The president, or Rove or whoever, badly miscalculated IMO in pushing this issue so soon. Nevertheless, I agree with this AndrewSullivan.com emailer when he says,
“Whoa! Wait a second! FMA collapses because of lack of REPUBLICAN support, and you label the Republican Party as exclusionary? Yes, some in the party supported it because of a heartfelt conviction that it was the right thing to do. The FMA went to honest debate within the party, and guess what? It lost. Seems to me the Republican Party is not the scary, neo-fascist entity you make it out to be. I consider myself to be pretty conservative, and a ‘right wing’ Christian – one of your favorite whipping boys – but I did not support FMA on grounds of Federalism, and because, quite frankly, I thought it unnecessarily hostile. That being said, however, there is room for reasonable debate, and the only place where that debate could take place is the non-monolithic Republican Party. And as far as the consequences for W: Conservative Christians are not going to abandon him since, after all, he supported the amendment. He has maintained his good will with them. And I suspect that most of us out here following the debate have the intellectual integrity to understand that the point is debatable. The debate having been joined, it appears that your side won. So lighten up. Now that the light has faded from this sideshow, let’s get back to where this election should be fought – who will best prosecute the war on terror. Hint: It ain’t John Kerry.”
The only thing the emailer overlooked is the extent to which gay Republicans and moderates will abandon the president this fall. While I still agree that the war on terrorism is the overarching issue which should define the election, nevertheless I can’t blame the defectors too much for abandoning the president when the political maneuvering behind pushing the FMA was so ill-timed and seemed especially designed to provoke their hostility and alienation. I only hope the president wins anyways, or better yet, that the Democrats suffer equally because of the defection of more blacks and Hispanics. [Fingers crossed]
July 14th, 2004 at 5:36:31 pm
Sorry, I can’t help quoting more of the WSJ’s wise editorial:
For his part, Mr. Bush has been accused of using the issue for campaign purposes, and no doubt he is listening to his conservative base. But let’s remember who made this a national issue. That was done by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, the Massachusetts Supreme Court and others who put their own personal agendas above current laws. It is revealing that in no case has gay marriage been sanctioned by a legislature, and that the courts, both federal and state, are filled with similar activist litigation.
This path, moreover, has been marked by disingenuousness all the way through. In last year’s Lawrence sodomy case, U.S. Supreme Court Justices assured us that it had no implications for gay marriage. But scarcely had the ink dried than the Massachusetts high court was invoking Lawrence to mandate gay marriage. Only a few years back, John Kerry attacked the Defense of Marriage Act (which was signed by Bill Clinton and says states do not have to recognize other states’ gay marriages) as “unconstitutional, unprecedented, unnecessary and mean-spirited.” Now Mr. Kerry invokes that law to justify his opposition to a constitutional amendment.
Likewise we see a number of born-again federalists, telling us to “leave it to the states.” We’re all for leaving it to the states. But most of those pushing gay marriage have no intention of doing so, at least if that means the democratic process. What they really mean is let’s stop all activity on a Constitutional amendment until the Supreme Court declares gay marriage to be a Constitutional right, in another version of Roe v. Wade.
July 14th, 2004 at 6:09:46 pm
I also really liked this WSJ opinion although I think it does intelligently side step the issue of the occasionally dubious rule a majority can impose on a minority.
Oddly, this debate reminds me of city statutes banning the sale of certain dog breeds; for example, Miami-Dade county prohibits the existence of any purebred pitbulls in the county. The decision is based solely on fear as the research has proven time and again that other breeds, such as Chow Chows and Shar-Peis are more likely to bite and/or serously injure people.
Denver had a similar clause in their city code preventing residents from owning pit bulls. The American Association of Pet Dog Trainers is having a massive four day conference in Denver and many trainers refused to attend it until the city revoked its code, which it did. Naturally, if someone is bitten by a pit bull, they might blame animal activists for introducing potentially harmful pets into a neighborhood.
The problem with this logic is that any pet can be dangerous; all dogs are predators, as are all cats. Should we prevent anyone from owning pets because of the danger one violent pet can pose to our citizenry?
The answer has been yes in many places. Property managers routinely refuse to rent to people who have pets. Pet-based businesses often have to put up their own capital for a free-standing building because real estate owners will not deal with the insurance costs of leasing to a potentially dangerous business.
How does this relate to gay marriage and the debates in the Senate? I’ll tell ya.
When unpopular breeds are shunted out of a community, they don’t cease to exist. Eliminating pit bulls in an attempt to halt dog fighting rings does not stop dog fighting. Similarly, a federal amendment against gay marriage does not stop gays and will not stop attempts to obtain gay marriages. (On a side note, I know that a few countries allow gay marriage. If gays got married there and moved here, would we have to honor that contract?) (Another side note. Could Kerry have nominated Bill Clinton to be his VP?)
Where am I going with this? Oh yeah. The point is, by eliminating a breed of animal from a certain location, you are denying people the opportunity to be responsible owners. In essence, you’re punishing everyone because of the misdeeds of a few people.
In the case of gay marriage, I feel like some in the government are relying on a whole lot of ifs in the absence of facts. When we made prohibition illegal, at least we could say that we knew that alcohol can and does have negative effects on society. But with this whole gay marriage thing, there’s simply no way to know if two married chicks will tarnish hetero marriage because hell, it doesn’t really happen with enough regularity for us to study it.
Okay, I keep losing my point. Oh yes, pit bulls are outlawed because of fear. Gay marriage is getting beat down because of a similar fear. “They” could hurt “us.”
I’m not saying that community will should be trampled on by a few loudmouthed activists. BUT, both our (state) governments have the responsibility to consider the impact of a herd mentality. After all, if we went with the herd’s feeling after 9-11, half the Middle East would be toast.
The moral of the story? Pit bulls should eat activists and a herd of wild homosexuals should trample Congress.
July 14th, 2004 at 9:23:53 pm
Far be it from me to encourage the religious right, but I think Andrew Sullivan is being a little overzealous here. Just because they didn’t get a majority shouldn’t be a “humiliation”. I don’t necessarilly agree with the gay marriage ammendmant idea, but it seems to me that just because your cause doesn’t win shouldn’t equate to humiliation. Heck if that were true lots of liberal causes should have been humiliated into giving up a long time ago.
July 14th, 2004 at 11:06:11 pm
Heh, very amusing, Becky. And some good points too. I guess I’d say that even though people “fear” pit bulls or “fear” homosexuals and thus try to ban said pit bulls or gay marriage, still some communities accept both. I think that works best: To each its own.
July 15th, 2004 at 7:49:50 am
Hehehe. It doesn’t really fit, but I’m tempted to put this in my “quotes” section:
“The moral of the story? Pit bulls should eat activists and a herd of wild homosexuals should trample Congress.” –Becky Zak
:)