The Marriage Amendment and Chafee in Rhode Island

Yesterday the Senate defeated by a vote of 49-48 a motion for cloture on the Marriage Amendment that would define marriage as only between a man and a woman. That motion for cloture needed 60 votes to pass, following which the Amendment would have gone on to a debate and vote in the Senate again, where it would then need a vote count of 67 in the affirmative to send it on to the states for ratification. All of the Left and the media, and many on the right, decry the vote as pure politics, and the media minions are harping on the result as a "stinging defeat" for the President and Republicans. I disagree. This proposed amendment was a response, not an attack. This is an issue that was started by liberal activists targeting liberal activist judges to obtain rulings that they know they couldn't get through the legislative or referendum process. Why raise it now? Because the attempt to legislate from the bench on this issue is still going on every day with new filings - but the media has learned its lesson from 2004 when the issue turned into a major plus for Republicans and President Bush and is now keeping its mouth shut about it.

Republican John McCain, who voted against cloture along with fellow Republicans Chafee, Gregg, Snowe, Specter and Sununu, made the following astounding statement after the vote:

"Most Americans are not yet convinced that their elected representatives or the judiciary are likely to expand decisively the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples..."

No, Senator, you are wrong. Every time the issue has been dealt with where it should be - not in the courts, but either by referendum or state legislation, it has passed overwhelmingly because people are afraid of what happened in Massachusetts. Liberal activist judges usurped the people's power and people across the country are afraid of that happening in their states. It’s called unchecked judicial power. I don't like the fact that we would even have to consider such an amendment but until and unless the Supreme Court rules that marriage is marriage or rules that courts should stay out of this I'm at a loss for what else can be done. Before I get called a bigot, two of my Killington ski-house mates and friends had a commitment ceremony as far back as 1992 that I supported and approved of then and still do now. It's just that marriage is a different thing.

Ted Kennedy, not to be out-done by the pandering technique two days earlier of his son Patrick, said the following:

"The Republican leadership is asking us to spend time writing bigotry into the Constitution," said Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, which legalized gay marriage in 2003. "A vote for it is a vote against civil unions, against domestic partnership, against all other efforts for states to treat gays and lesbians fairly under the law."

No Senator, you are wrong as well. The full text of the proposed amendment was as follows:

"SECTION 1. This article may be cited as the `Marriage Protection Amendment'.
SECTION 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. 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."

Teddy, that means "marriage = man + woman". Civil unions consisting of any other coupling is not covered by this amendment and is allowed - just don't call it marriage. And legislators can convey any benefits they want on civil unions.

Nationwide polls have shown that voters are overwhelmingly opposed to same-sex marriage. Recent polls that have been touted in the press, however, have suspiciously coupled that question with a question about approving a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. That question has less support. But if the question was asked in the manner in which the amendment is offered - that it is as a final alternative to uncontrolled actions by activist judges going against the will of the people - I'd bet the marriage amendment would have more public support in those same polls. But that wouldn't have the effect that the media is hoping, would it?

Even in liberal Rhode Island, same-sex marriage doesn't have much support, let alone majority support. In a recent Rhode Island College poll only 31% of voters approved gay marriage, while 42% drew the line at civil unions. 21% wanted to continue a ban on same-sex marriage while apparently 6% had no opinion at all. A word of caution - the poll results are written to appeal to a liberal audience, so the conclusions state that by a 3 to 1 margin voters support legally recognized same-sex unions, either marriage or civil. But it could just as easily be said that by a 3 to 1 margin Rhode Island voters disapprove of same-sex marriage, with an overwhelming plurality supporting civil unions. It's all in the phraseology.

All of this talk about ideology and "values" is getting some Republicans pursuing re-election nervous, claimed Carl Hulse in a New York Times article yesterday. And whom does Hulse use as an example of a nervous Republican? Why Rhode Island's Senator Lincoln Chafee, of course! The only other named Republicans that Hulse can find are Ed Rollins and John McCain. That speaks for itself. Pat Toomey is mentioned, but it's hard to determine if it was just to give Hulse his "some conservatives" straw man cover mentioned in the article or if Toomey is actually concerned about damage from the Marriage Amendment. From the quote from Toomey used by Hulse in the article I think that because of his position with Club for Growth, Toomey is just naturally more concerned about economic issues.

And what specifically does Chafee have to fret about?

"It [ideological topics] may stir up my primary voters a little bit against me," said Mr. Chafee, a centrist Republican up for re-election. He opposes the push for a constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage and is under intense pressure to back a proposed amendment that would forbid flag burning. "I'm collateral damage."

Well, Senator, it's all about taking easily definable (i.e. hard votes rather than talking points) positions on issues that the party core supports. Even in Rhode Island same-sex marriage is a solidly minority position to hold, and not just in the Republican Party. And by your vote yesterday you have taken a position that in effect supports gay marriage and activist judges who legislate from the bench - which, by the way, usurps and infringes on your role as a representative of the people. Deal with it.

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.