Gay-marriage ban a no-win deal for Bush

Philadelphia Inquirer ^ | 5-22-06 | Dick Polman

[ElkGroveDan]

With a name like Dick Polman he has zero credibility on the issue.

I once encountered one of "them" named Richard Love.

[MACVSOG68]

I don't know who this Fabrizio is, but this passage is strange;

--"Fabrizio estimates, based on his own surveys, that half of today's Republicans are "theocrats" who want government to "promote traditional values by protecting traditional marriage," as opposed to wanting less government intrusion into personal lives.--"

I agree with you. In the Republican Party, only 14% identifies itself as part of the Christian Right. Out of that, I doubt less than half would classify themselves as theocrats.

But having said that, it's clear that most Americans do not want homosexual marriage as the law. Yet we have not reached the need for a constitutional amendment. It should be a state issue. If Massachusetts wants to legalize homosexual marriage, then that is their decision. But no other state need recognize that marriage. The Defense of Marriage Act provides that and does not conflict with Article IV of the Constitution. If, and only if the USSC strikes that down, then a constitutional amendment becomes necessary. It is the business of the state how it treats the legality of its homosexual population. That is how you protect traditional marriage while at the same time keeping the federal government out of people's lives. They are not mutually exclusive.

[pawdoggie]

Must be very wishful thinking. In the last election, gay marriage was voted down at a massive level. Eleven out of eleven states.

Yes. Wishful thinking and a Left-wing agitprop attempt to separate religious conservatives from the Republican Party. The President has said he was in favor of the Amendment, back when the Democrats were touting polls that purported to show that a majority of Americans did not favor a Constitutional ban. It's up to the leadership in the House and Senate to do the "heavy lifting" now, although other pressing issues, like Iraq, immigration and energy have (seemingly) taken precedence.

[Aetius]

Were there no threat of a federal court, and ultimately the Sup Court, imposing gay marriage/civil unions then I'd probablly agree with you. As it is, many in Congress from both parties claimed to oppose gay marriage, yet also oppose the Amendment on the grounds you speak of; i.e. that its a matter for the states to decide. I wonder how many of these politicians parroting this line are serious, and how many are simply lying. Will Senators McCain and Conrad, for example, vote for an Amendment IF there is a Sup Court imposition of gay marriage/civil unions? (and the 'civil unions' part is key, because while I will admit they enjoy significant support from the public, the imposition of them from the courts is no less radical than full-on gay marriage -- the only proper course for the courts is to stay out of it).

Part of me wishes that Frist would instead try to call these Senators on their stated beliefs, and instead offer up an alternative Amendment, like the one Orrin Hatch has supported. I can't remember the exact wording, but it either explicitly empowered the states to handle it, or explicity removed the matter from consideration from federal courts. Since such language would let states set any policy they want, I can't imagine how a McCain would justify a vote against it.

[MACVSOG68]

Very well analyzed. I would be interested in one that permitted states to do as they wish, but the DOMA does that now. I'm not sure how the USSC would rule against DOMA, given that it complies completely with Article IV, which gives Congress the authority to make rules pertaining to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. If so, it would have to be a convoluted reading of the 14th Amendment, and if so, even a constitutional amendment would have to be constructed so as not to conflict with the 14th. So yes, I'd like to see that.