Considering the Bush administration’s record with respect to civil rights issues, the fact that they are promoting a worthless, but politically expedient, amendment to the Constitution to ban gay marriage should come as no surprise to any of us. However, you’d think their own brand spanking new Spokesman-in-Chief, Tony Snow, would at least have a passing familiarity with the meaning of the term. You’d think that, but, alas, you’d be wrong (via RAW STORY):
At the White House press briefing today, Bush press secretary Tony Snow signaled that Bush considers an amendment barring same-sex marriage a “civil rights” matter, then stumbled when asked to define civil rights, RAW STORY has found.
That’s right. An amendment to the Constitution to legally discriminate against a particular group of Americans is a civil rights measure in the eyes of the Bush administration. No doubt that sort of oymoronic prevarication plays well with the Republican right wing base, but let me ask Tony this question (and I’ll make it easy for him by using a very simple example):
If I, as the representative of the government, physically remove a mother (let’s call her “Bad Mom”) from her child (i.e., “Bad Kid”), and then tell Bad Kid that she can never see her mother again because she’s such a bad kid, and her Mom’s such a bad mom, that they don’t deserve to be mother and child any longer, have I extended rights to anyone?
In the above hypothetical, Bad Kid is deprived of her mother, Bad Mom is deprived of her child, and all the other mothers and children in the world are unaffected one way or the other. At least, as long as they are not like Bad Mom and Bad Kid, that is.
Correct me if I’m off base here, but where I come from rights are something a person is entitled to do, or something that either the Government and/or other people cannot prohibit a person from doing. Civil rights don’t have anything to do with preserving the institution of motherhood, or, to think of another example, the institution of marriage. Rights protect individuals, not holy sacraments.
So, when you ban homosexuals from marrying the people they love, you aren’t granting anyone any rights. All you are doing is besmirching the Constitution, and in particular the principle established by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
In effect, the proposed amendment, by forever banning gay marriage under the Constitution, would provide that certain people (i.e., those who wish to marry a person of the same gender) are a lesser class of persons who are not entitled to marry the people whom they choose to love. Such an amendment can only be viewed as a measure depriving a specific minority (homosexuals) of whatever marriage rights they have under existing state law. It would clearly mandate unequal treatment of those American citizens under the Constitution. Calling it a civil rights measure is insulting to anyone with half a brain.
In any case, a video link to Tony Blow’s remarks can be found HERE. A transcript of his remarks follows below the fold.
Partial transcript of the White House Press Briefing on June 5, 2006:
WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY TONY SNOW: Whether it passes or not, as you know, Terry, there have been a number of cases where civil rights matters have risen on a number of occasions, and they’ve been brought up for repeated consideration by the United States Senate and other legislative bodies…
Q You mentioned civil rights. Are you comparing this to various civil rights measures which have come to the Congress over the years?
MR. SNOW: Not — well, these — it —
Q Is this a civil right?
MR. SNOW: Marriage? It actually — what we’re really talking about here is an attempt to try to maintain the traditional meaning of an institution that has maintained one meeting for — meaning for a period of centuries. And furthermore —
Q And you would equate that with civil rights?
MR. SNOW: No, I’m just saying that I think — well, I don’t know. How do you define civil rights?
Q It’s not up to me. Up to you.
MR. SNOW: Okay. Well, no, it’s your question. So I — if I —
Q (Chuckles.)
MR. SNOW: I need to get a more precise definition.
Yes Tony, you most certainly do need a more precise definition. Let me offer you this one, courtesy of the New Mexico Education Department:
The protections and privileges of personal liberty given to all US citizens by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Personal liberty. The freedom to do the things we wish to do. For example, to speak out against government actions with which we disapprove. To choose to have children or not have children. To marry whomever we choose. To vote. To travel. To buy goods and services wherever we wish. To drink out of the same water fountain as anyone else. To go to the same public schools as anyone else. To associate with whomever we want.
Really pretty simple stuff when you think about it, eh Tony?
LINK
Also cross posted at My Left Wing.
Durbin and Reid are on the Senate floor doing a funny question and answer routine.
is against the Hate Amendment. He gave a long-winded and stupid explanation for opposing it, but he is opposing it.
To Tony Snow and his ilk, gays aren’t real people, they’re nothing better than animals. The same applies to brown/yellow people and immigration. It really is that simple.
Just wait, at this rate it’s only a matter of a decade or two before we have a new “Civil Rights” movement to limit rights to only those who deserve them (i.e. rich white men). I would bet money there are at least four justices on the Supreme Court right now who would support it.
So, based on his responses in the press conference, the reason they want a constitutional amendment is that those pesky federal judges keep overturning the “decision of the voters” to restrict marriage to a man and a woman as “unconstituational” so they have to amend the constitution so that no state, no matter what the decision of the voters may be in the future, can ever decide it’s okay for gays to have legal marriage.
Someone should ask him, if in 1964, the voters of Alabama had voted to deny voting rights to African Americans which was then thrown out by a federal court, if he thinks a Constituational Amendment should have been introduced to “support” their choice?
The civil rights of a minority are rarely, if ever, established by the vote of the majority. This doesn’t mean that minority’s rights are invalid.
I have yet to see or hear any explanation from anyone that establishes what HARM allowing gay couples to have legal marriages will do to existing or future hetero marriages. As far as I can see, allowing gay couples to marry will have no effect whatsoever on ANYONE save the gay couple themselves, and their children — and for them, that’s a whole beneficial thing. And the thing is — unless you already know the couple personally — you will never even be aware whether they are legally married or not. That detail of their personal lives, which is so vitally important to them, is totally irrelevant to you. So just what is the big frickin’ deal here?
This IS a civil rights matter. It violates civil rights. Just like war is a peace matter, because it ends it. You just don’t get Rabid Right logic, do you?
As for rich people (who are not all men nor even all white), just about everything the Bush administration has done has been in support of their civil rights, to have everything and do anything they want. It’s freedom, get it?
It seems to me that this is a matter of “equal protection under the law.” If married people can benefit from being married somehow -inherit money, pay lower taxes, adopt the partners child, then African Americans should have those rights too – Oh, I mean Women – Oh, I mean Gays… (who are we beating up on this week?)
Writing an exclusion into the Constitution seems like a dangerous and slippery slope and any member of ANY minority – even Christians -should be very affraid to vote yes on this amendment.
I think all “Organized Religions” should be banned. I’m pretty sure this idea will never make it into the Constitution, and I hope it never does.