If anyone ever got it in their head that chickens are man’s best friend, I would be outraged. Chickens are cute and useful, but their brains are the size of a pea. And, if I found myself being consistently assaulted by exposure to people that misapplied the phrase “man’s best friend” to chickens, I would be sorely tempted to call for a Constitutional Amendment that would put a swift stop to it. As a dog lover, I would almost feel it was my civic duty to stick up for the traditional interpretation of the relationship between a man and his dog. I’m certain Rick Santorum would agree with me.
But, seriously…if you believe its proponents, the Hate Amendment that is being debated on the Senate floor is really nothing more than a prohibition on using the word ‘marriage’ in a novel way. The Defense of Marriage Act has already passed congress and been signed by Bill Clinton. That law allows states to recognize or not recognize the gay marriages that are certified in other states. At least ostensibly (the language is imprecise), the amendment does not aim to deny civil unions or other types of contracts that would allow a gay couple to attain legal recognition and attendant rights and privileges. It has nothing to say about what businesses may or may not recognize. In other words, all this amendment would accomplish is to make it illegal for states to use the word ‘marriage’. Even if the underlying motive and politics of bringing up the amendment were not disgraceful, it would still be a stupid thing to do. Let’s look at the language.
2004 Version (H.J. Res. 106 (108th Congress 2004) and S.J. Res. 40 (108th Congress 2004)):
1. Marriage in the United States of America shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.
2. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.
“Or the legal incidents thereof” seems to be the key ambiguity of the amendment. Depending on how the courts interpreted that phrase, this amendment could either have no effect other than banning the use of the word ‘marriage’ to describe a gay couple’s union or it could actually ban the ‘legal incidents’ that we associate with civil unions bills.
It’s all largely irrelevent anyway because the amendment is not going to pass. It probably will not even get 50 votes…far from the 67 it would need. But, the language is important. Denying ‘legal incidents’ goes beyond defending a word to deny people fundamental rights.
And to see just how cynical this debate is, let’s revisit January 2005:
President Bush said Sunday that he will not press the Senate to pass a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
In a wide-ranging interview with the Washington Post Bush said that he remains opposed to gay marriage but believes there aren’t the votes in the Senate to ensure the amendment would be adopted.
“The point is, is that Senators have made it clear that so long as DOMA is deemed constitutional, nothing will happen. I’d take that admonition seriously,” Bush told the Post.
I guess that what’s happening is that in a few states (so far), that DOMA is in fact, being ruled unconstitutional at the state level — and so clearly the whole idea of marriage is in serious jeopardy throughout the country!
Heaven forbid that Massachusetts be permitted to decide something different than, say, Utah or Mississippi. Any and all loopholes that might possibly permit gay couples to be treated as equal to hetero couples must be rubbed out of existence….
And lord knows, there’s nothing more IMPORTANT that the Senate could be considering right now… </snark>
DOMA may be headed nowhere in Congress, but I suspect some of the Pride celebrations & marches this month will be a little more animated than ever. This Sunday, 6/11 in San Jose; 6/25 in SF.
My impression is that the right is split as to the ‘legal incidents’ that might be possible in civil unions, but make no mistake — the most rabid of them have a hissy when it’s suggested that things like tax/insurance bene’s, a partner’s medical decisions & other such ‘incidentals’ should be extended to gays.
James Inhofe is talking about group marriage on the Senate floor. That would solve the rampant adultery problem for a lot of male politicians.
Lautenberg is pissed off.
Russ is taking the floor. This should be a classic. C-SPAN2 people.
Of course the only people in the United States who can’t see this for the cynical manipulation of a certain segement of our society (known by progressives and Tom Delay’s chief of staff as lunatic whackos) are the said lunatic whackos at which this directed.
One of my business associates ,who happens to be African American and who is dismayed by all things Bush, said that “at least Bush is doing one thing right” in coming up with this gay bashing amendment. Given that my colleague is a devout person and a friend, I refrained from screaming “Holy Fuck What Happened to Your Brain.”
The cynicism of Bush and all Republican office seekers lies in their attack on the federal judiciary, the vast majority of which they have themselves appointed How stupid do these pricks think we are? “Pretty fuckin'” they would reply. Bush’s latest sound bite says that the amendment is needed to protect the people and state legislatures from “activist judges.” (I know we were all waiting for the next election so that we could hear that one.) Their general prickiness knows no bounds, nor does their contempt of the very people they stir up every two years.
I’ve tried to explain to my mother-in-law, who is one of the target audience of lunatic right wing religious whackos (and shit, I actually still like her), that the Republicans don’t care about her, actually put policies in place that harm her and her grandchildren, that if Bush really cared about whether gay people should get married he would have done something about it since her beloved party controls the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the federal government. She can only regurtigate the Christian Right identity politics of a cultural inferiority complex. This of course used to be called bigotry and racism.
My prayer is that this election season the majority of Americans will see this cynical crap for what it is….namely crap.