Posted on 01/12/2004 6:06:02 AM PST by NYer
NEW YORK - Intrigued by divisions within conservative ranks, gay-rights strategists are trying to portray a proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage as a radical step that true conservatives should oppose.
The Human Rights Campaign, a national gay rights group, is targeting conservatives with a radio and print ad campaign starting Monday in 10 areas, including Omaha, Neb.; Indianapolis; Tampa, Fla.; Milwaukee; Las Vegas; and Philadelphia.
"Be conservative with the Constitution," the ads say. "Don't amend it."
Disagreements among conservatives have emerged in recent months over the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, which would stipulate that marriage is only between a man and woman.
Some want the measure toughened so it would bar same-sex civil unions and domestic partnerships as well as gay marriages. Other conservatives, including several prominent columnists and politicians, say the Constitution is the wrong place to address contentious social problems and contend the measure would infringe on states' rights.
The critics include former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., who called the amendment "needlessly intrusive," and columnist George Will, who said it would unwisely override state responsibility for marriage law.
Tony Perkins, president of the pro-amendment Family Research Council, said he respected some of the criticism. However, he said the amendment was the only effective option now that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has ruled the state cannot deny marriage rights to same-sex couples.
"It's no longer a theoretical discussion about 'What ifs?'" Perkins said in a telephone interview. "It's a public policy crisis."
President Bush addressed the issue during an interview with ABC News last month, but his comments confused and dismayed many conservative activists.
On the one hand, Bush said, "If necessary, I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman, codify that."
However, in what some conservatives perceived as an endorsement of civil unions, Bush added, "The position of this administration is that whatever legal arrangements people want to make, they're allowed to make, so long as it's embraced by the state or at the state level."
Among the conservative leaders disappointed by that remark was Gary Bauer, president of American Values. "His unfortunate statement undermines pro-family conservatives around the country who are working in state legislatures to prevent such 'fake marriages' from being forced on the American people," Bauer said in a statement.
As introduced in Congress, the Federal Marriage Amendment was designed to ban gay marriage but leave open the possibility that state lawmakers approve civil unions or domestic partnerships extending some marriage-like rights to same-sex couples.
New Jersey's legislature has just approved a domestic partnership law, joining California and Hawaii. Vermont has marriage-like civil unions.
The $350,000 advertising effort of the Human Rights Campaign - which will include radio ads on conservative talk shows - is one of the first initiatives undertaken under its new president, former Massachusetts State Sen. Cheryl Jacques.
In a telephone interview, Jacques said she was struck by the disunity among conservatives regarding the marriage amendment.
"We can all have different positions on the underlying issue," she said. "But at the end of the day, there are many conservatives who come down on the side of 'Don't mess with the Constitution.'"
One of the ads, to run in Indiana, depicts a farmer musing, "Once the politicians start using the Constitution to take away rights, I wonder which ones they'll go after next."
Though the leading Democratic presidential candidates have balked at endorsing gay marriage, Jacques said she is pleased that they support civil unions. As for Bush, Jacques suggested he might try to avoid the divisive topic as much as possible during his re-election campaign.
ON THE NET
Human Rights Campaign: http://www.hrc.org
Family Research Council: http://www.frc.org
| Rank | Location | Receipts | Donors/Avg | Freepers/Avg | Monthlies | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14 | New Jersey | 796.00 |
19 |
41.89 |
347 |
2.29 |
170.00 |
8 |
Thanks for donating to Free Republic!
Move your locale up the leaderboard!
Nice. I agree.
But, what about Article IV, Section 1:
"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."
Will this mean that sensible folks in California will be required to acknowledge the legitimacy of the crazy marriages that the screwballs in Texas might allow?
I see your anti-Texas bias coming through again, Scenic. You'd better watch that - don't you want to be seen as fair and even handed? :-)
I see your point; but I still don't think that every problem must be solved by something so serious as a Constitutional amendment. If we must regulate this at a federal level, why can't we use a regular statute to do so?
I see. You just don't cotton to monkeying with the Constitution for this kind of thing, I guess. I suppose you'd also feel the same way about my proposal for a Constitutional amendment to protect our right to smoke in restaurants, wouldn't you? Just be honest and admit it!!
And, I have no anti-Texas bias, Cathryn!!!! Actually, I happen to think that Texas is a fine little state.
Can I go play golf now? ;-)
In just one minute.
And, I have no anti-Texas bias, Cathryn!!!! Actually, I happen to think that Texas is a fine little state.
It's not little!
You just don't cotton to monkeying with the Constitution for this kind of thing, I guess.
You're right - I don't cotton to monkeying around with (sure you aren't really from Texas?) the Constitution for almost anything. Something like this is just too easily regulated state-by-state or by a regular statute.
I suppose you'd also feel the same way about my proposal for a Constitutional amendment to protect our right to smoke in restaurants, wouldn't you?
LOL. I just think you want to argue today.
ping.
You'll get no fight from me.
Texas is an adorable little state. It has a lot in common with California, particularly the similar border issues. In fact, we Californians sort of think of Texas as California's baby sister. ;-)
I've heard that before!!!
Texas is an adorable little state. It has a lot in common with California, particularly the similar border issues. In fact, we Californians sort of think of Texas as California's baby sister. ;-)
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm. Oh, never mind. :-)
Nice. I agree.
Normally I'd agree as well, except that we have judges legislating from the bench who seem unable to read the constitution as it is...so they need it clarified for them.
Because of abortion, lavender "rights", bans on prayer, attacks on religion, the original constitution is beginning to wear thin and to show its age rather than its staying power. Amendments, including definition of marriage and strong restraints upon judicial usurpation and judicial legislation, are necessary but will probably not be enacted so we continue to degenerate as a nation in thrall to leftist special interest groups. We need a constitution not a libertarian playpen.
As I Christian it is not necessary for me to force my faith on anyone though I am to share it. However, I am not willing to share the fiscal benefits of marriage with any new grouping of people that want to define themselves as married. Pushed to the limit and house full of people could define themselves as married and demand all the benefits that the government and insurance companies have in place. All this while living the most reckless of lifestyle.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.