First Lady: Don't Campaign on Marriage Ban

WASHINGTON - Some election-year advice to Republicans from a high-ranking source who has the president's ear: Don't use a proposed constitutional amendment against gay marriage as a campaign tool.

The first lady told "Fox News Sunday" that she thinks the American people want a debate on the issue. But, she said, "I don't think it should be used as a campaign tool, obviously."

"It requires a lot of sensitivity to just talk about the issue — a lot of sensitivity," she said.

The Senate will debate legislation that would have the Constitution define marriage as the union between a man and a woman early next month, Majority Leader Bill Frist said on CNN's "Late Edition."

President Bush supports the amendment, but Vice President Dick Cheney does not. Cheney's daughter, Mary, is a lesbian and has been speaking out against the marriage amendment as she promotes her new book, "Now It's My Turn."

Mary Cheney wrote that she almost quit working on the Bush-Cheney campaign in 2004 because of Bush's position on gay marriage. Asked Sunday about reports that White House political adviser Karl Rove and other Republicans want to use the issue to mobilize conservatives for the midterm election, she said she hoped "no one would think about trying to amend the Constitution as a political strategy."

"I certainly don't know what conversations have gone on between Karl and anybody up on the Hill," she said on Fox. "But you know, what I can say is look, amending the Constitution with this amendment, this piece of legislation, is a bad piece of legislation. It is writing discrimination into the Constitution, and, as I say, it is fundamentally wrong."

"I basically say, Mr. Vice President, right now marriage is under attack in this country," Frist said on CNN. "And we've seen activist judges overturning state by state law, where state legislatures have passed laws defining marriage between a man and a woman, and that's being overturned by a handful of activist judges around the country. And that is why we need an amendment to come to the floor of the United States Senate to define marriage as that union between one man and one woman."

---Actually, we don't. Leave this as a States Rights issue where it should be. States can take care of themselves on issues such as protecting traditional marriage, abortion, gun rights, property rights, etc.

I don't want to see our Constitution amended in this manner.---

That would be fine and well if federal judges actually respected states rights and the Constitution. What will you say about it when the Sup Court imposes gay marriage/civil unions, which they almost certainly will at some point?

There are only a few ways to stop this;

1. Keep winning the Presidency and Senate, and always put good judges on the Sup Court: Based on past history, then even if the GOP keeps winning, the latter part of the equation is unlikely as the Souters and O'Connors prove.

2. Pass some sort of Federal Amendment worded in such a way that at a minimum it stops federal courts (and ideally state ones too) from getting involved and imposing any outcome: Here I would agree that the Amendment Frist is likely to bring up will likely fail, again, but there are other ways to word an Amendment that would stop short of banning gay marriage, but would also stop the Courts from sticking thier noses where they don't belong. Part of me wishes they would bring up such an alternative Amendment ( I think Orrin Hatch has sponsored one that basically empowers the states), because it would call the bluff of all those Democrats and Republicans who claimed to support states rights.

3. Accept the inevitabilty of a SCOTUS imposition, and then simply ignore the decision when it comes: Decades of Judicial Supremacy might make this sound radical, but I don't think it would seem so to Thomas Jefferson or Andrew Jackson. If Congress, the President, and enough states were in agreement, then there is nothing the Sup Court could do about it. Admittedly, this is almost unimaginable. Its hard to imagine even a conservative Republican president and Congress having the courage to do this. Any sort of defiance would likely have to come from conservative states, and then it would be fascinating to see how it plays out.

We should be prepared for the possibilty that the GOP elite is going to betray conservatives on this as they have on racial preferences and immigration. As gay marriage/civil unions gains more support in elite circles, then its likely that Republican leaders will grow weary of being associated with the intolerant rabble who, you know, actually vote for them.

If the Sup Court were to impose gay marriage/civil unions in the near future, does anyone think that any part of the GOP leadership, with the possible exception of the House, would wage a vigorous campaign to overturn, thwart, or deny it?

I don't. Instead, I think we would hear a common refrain from the abortion debate; 'the courts have spoken, now its a mater of settled law, time to move on, bow down to your judicial overlords...'

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.