In case you haven’t heard the news yet here’s the skinny: President Bush has announced his support for an amendment to the Constitution that would prohibit same-sex marriages and–according to some–civil unions. The Associated Press report on the subject can be found here.
The fallout has already started to drift to the ground. The opening paragraph from the aforementioned AP report is a good way to begin, I think.
I’m sure you can parse the language on your own, but I think I’ll go ahead and call attention to the words “quick,” “election-year” and “Republicans […] not rushing.” A few remarks from those not-exactly-rushing Republicans:
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said the matter should be left to the states, and Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., said changing the Constitution should be a last resort on almost any issue.
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said he appreciated Bush’s “moral leadership” on the issue, but expressed caution about moving too quickly toward a constitutional solution, and never directly supported one. “This is so important we’re not going to take a knee-jerk reaction to this,” Delay said. “We are going to look at our options and we are going to be deliberative about what solutions we may suggest.”
Unfortunately, our Democratic front-runners haven’t exactly been something to be proud of in response.
“If he really wants to help married couples, what he should be doing is helping them resolve their economic problems, their health care problems,” Edwards said while campaigning in Georgia.
The Daily Kos has a brief reaction and round-up of notable quotables.
Josh Marshall has a good analysis of why Republican members of Congress might not be too happy with Bush announcing this when he did. Andrew Sullivan responded to the announcement with outrage and a feeling of betrayal. He’s also posted letters from some of his readers here, here, here, and here. The Poor Man thinks this is Bush’s Waterloo. I think the best summary of the situation comes by way of Discount Blogger:
- Hate gay people. Wish they were all dead
- Don’t hate gay people, but don’t care either
- Don’t hate gay people, but want to keep marriage as-is
- Don’t care
- Like gay people, but want to keep marriage as-is
- Fully support gay people in their quest for marriage rights
- And many others, most likely
But there is another group of people out there that I don’t think the president and his advisors have taken into consideration:
- People who, under no circumstances want anyone fucking with their most sacred document for political gain
These people might like gay people. They might be indifferent. They may hate gay people.
But none of them wants the constitution of this land to be used as a political tool to garner votes. And I think president Bush has just lost a lot of these people.
One of Alas’ own comment threads got a brief testimonial and reaction from “Gavin”:
So… Now that you’re all caught up, discuss..
I am not as outraged as I should be by the shrub’s call for a constitutional amendment.
Bush proposal is a cynical pandering. Sullivan calls it a profound attach. I would agree if I thought there was a snowball’s chance of a constitutional amendment passing.
This is a safe road for Bush to take in an election year. He can say- see I supported a constitutional amendment publically- while privately supporting DeLay and others in opposing it. Then he has perfect cover for why it didn’t pass. If I thought there was a chance it would pass, I would be pretty upset right now.
That is not to say I think he is doing the right thing. It just disgusts me in general. But then, most things this adminstration does disgusts me.
You left out one group—-of which I consider myself a part: folks who think that marriage is overrated at best and an oppressive, reactionary institution at worst (especially for women). However, since HETEROSEXUAL marriage ain’t going away anytime soon, simple fairness demands that gays and lesbians have the right to participate in it—-for better or worse, so to speak.
That said, we also need to fight for the right of non-married couples to many of the same benifits married folks have—straight and gay alike.
If he screws with the Constitution, I can’t wait to see the thousands of gays who have been recently married file lawsuits against the President.
Why is Bush still the President? How come he has not been booted out of office yet for his incessant hate?
Who Bush Hates
Arabs
Gays
Sexually Active Teenagers
Women who want control over own bodies
Working Class
Did I forget anyone?
You forgot soldiers.
and anybody who disagrees with the Inner Circle.
and polyamorous people. (:
and puppies.
And fuzzy widdle baby bunnies.
Yeah, I think Bush has done a pretty good job so far, but this amendment proposal is pretty embarrassing.
It’s just a political stunt anyway. None of this will come to light until after the election.
Really this is part of the electioneering playbook, and both parties do it. Rile up the base, then shift toward the center as the election looms closer.
Something about Bushes and tampering with the Constitution for political gain. This reeks of “Flag Burning Amendment” residues.
Traitors don’t deserve elections. Whether or not they support whatever it is they support or don’t.
They toss this issue out, not because it is an election year, though it theoretically that (if not for Diebold and the betrayal by registrars and SecStates all over the country), but because it moves the ball down the field while the clock is running.
This attempt at producing ‘the fog of war’ to cover their crimes against the Republic should be responded to by buzzing the lips together forcefully, and staying on target.
Bushliar has done a pretty good ‘job’? If you like what he’s done, you’re a racist, Quad.
A racist even!
Paul, you have nothing original, interesting, or intelligent to say.
Go pound sand.
Indeed. I mean, don’t get me wrong hear, Quad has been annoying me on and off, but where did that racist comment come from? Just like someone can oppose the Iraq war without supporting Saddam, someone can support the Iraq war without just being for killing all the Ay-rabs. Or were you going for a different angle.
Meh, I’ve got work to do yet and it’s 2:17 in the am. Yeek.
So, what aren’t we talking about? Bush’s missing guard time? The enormous deficeit (sorry –spelling impaired today…)? Greenspan talking about reducing SS and medicare? This is a easy one for Bush — he can make all those Americans who think ssm is wrong happy, and make his political opponents and the rest of us forget or stop talking about,at least temporarily, the real stuff happening.
There are some, or one, Republican congresspeople in Minnesota who are talking of changing the MN constitution to ban SSM, which is especially stupid since it is already against state law…
I just got word that Chuck, a friend of mine, commited suicide.
His fundamentalist christian father could not accept him being gay, had sent him to christian
reprogramming camp and monitored every facet of his life, keeping him permanently grounded.
We had spoken of his leaving home often and both
I and his mother, who was slightly sympathetic,
felt that it would be best if he could just hold on until he graduated from high school in May.
I cannot look on gay prejudice dispassionately,
my stomach turns when I hear that Kerry and
Edwards think that equality for gays is something
which should be “left up to the states”.
I’ve just had it with these bigots.
Wow! Of all the people here, you caught me off guard backing me up. Actually I expected a frothy mouthed defense of Paul the village idiot, and a unilateral condemnation of my comments. I’m glad that someone has enough brains to see that ignoramuses like that just weaken your message. And I must say, you irritate me to no end Raz! (But I do respect your mind (if not your politics), and always look for your posts.
That said, we can go back to pecking each others eyes out.
Somehow in all of the debate about what’s best for gay people we seem to lose sight of the actual … you know … gay people. (Patrick O’s friend’s father would be an extreme horrible example. Sorry about your friend.) Maybe the best reason to legalize same-sex marriage would be to let actual gay people decide what’s best for each of them. By marrying. Or not.
Well, thanks Quad. Uhhhh, you jerk, you.
I think we should, for the record, use words like Social Security or Same Sex in general as opposed to abreviations. SSN and SSM makes sense, but when I see SS I think Schutzstaffel which brings a whole new angle to the debate I really don’t want to get into.
Julie wrote: So, what aren’t we talking about? Bush’s missing guard time? The enormous deficeit (sorry –spelling impaired today…)? Greenspan talking about reducing SS and medicare? This is a easy one for Bush — he can make all those Americans who think ssm is wrong happy, and make his political opponents and the rest of us forget or stop talking about,at least temporarily, the real stuff happening.
Well, this is a feminist blog – at least, that’s how I approach it, PDP and Bean have their own approaches of course – and I think it’s natural that we concentrate on gender-related issues (not that we don’t talk about other stuff too).
Also, equal rights for lesbians and gays is “real stuff.”
I thought this political cartoon was both funny and on the mark…
Sorry, Amp —
I didn’t make my point very well. What I meant to say is that I think this is a smokescreen, a diversionary tactic, an attempt to make the press, the media, the American people, the blogs, talk about a safer and easier topic for Bush than those things I mentioned in my previous post — social security, being AWOL, etc. Bush is using the fact that 2/3 of Americans are against same-sex marriages as political fodder. He is using gay/lesbian rights to take some cheap shots at the Democratic nominees, to get attention off other items that aren’t so easy for him to talk about, to make people think he is right there with them thinking those gays are just wrong. I think Bush has used this tactic before — North Korea suddenly was front and center for a while last year, then just slid off the radar again. To be fair, I am sure that Bush is not the only President who used the White House press to his gain…
Also, sorry, I didn’t mean gay/lesbian rights are not real stuff — they are very real, and important. But this Constitutional Amendment doesn’t seem very real, or rather likely, to me. What is real to me is the fact that there is a possibility for real change here — that despite Bush’s amendment, there is at last a slight glimmer of hope that someday same-sex marriages will be commonplace enough that we no longer remark on them.
By the way, I am married to an Army officer (who is much more moderate than me), and it has been tough biting my lip though Bush’s tenure (all due respect to the Commander-in-Chief, and all that…) so thanks for a blog where I can “talk” to people who are much more in line with my point of view…
julie,
what did you Army officer husband think of Clinton? I’m actually genuinely curious, if he’s just a hard-line Army Republican or a man who believes loyalty to the president trumps all.
Or I guess it’s possible he wasn’t in the army before 2001. There’s really no indication of a posters age here.
Hey, Raznor —
First — he has been active duty 18 years, and I have been married to him all that time.
My husband is not a Republican. He is, like me, an anti-Republican, but just more moderate than I am. Anyway, he liked Clinton and doesn’t like Bush, but has to walk that careful line because while it is perfectly acceptable to mock a Democratic Commander-in-Chief, you cannot do so when it’s a Repub. There are some non-repubs in the military, but you tend to keep your head down. Being too public in disdain of the CinC can be bad for an officer’s career. And it is against the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
It has been very difficult in the last few years, especially during the election mess in Florida. I have been reminded, when I get a little to emphatic about my feelings about Bush, that he is my husband’s CinC. I remind them in return that Clinton was their husband’s CinC, and that kinda shuts them up.
But I find it very interesting that AFN (the military television service) has been showing “ads” reminding us that it is against the USMJ for officers to insult the CinC. I have been in Europe for seven years, from 86 to 91, and from 2001 to now. I do not ever remember them having these announcements before, and they were not airing them before the Iraq mess started. But there has been some negative views and feelings expressed about Bush in the military press, by soldiers who are in Iraq.
Back to the Clinton question — my general impression is that the average soldier and officer didn’t like Clinton too much, and Hilary is pretty much hated among the officers’ spouses.
We are assigned to NATO right now, so it’s been easier because I have friends who are German, English, Scottish, Canadian, etc, who are not too fond of Bush either. My international book club is planning to read Hilary’s book, and some of the women, mainly American, object. Could make for a very interesting meeting… And Bush is really not too well liked among my international friends, seemingly even among the more conservative.
There. I hope that answers your question. Without bludgeoning you with too much information…
Hey, Raznor —
First — he has been active duty 18 years, and I have been married to him all that time.
My husband is not a Republican. He is, like me, an anti-Republican, but just more moderate than I am. Anyway, he liked Clinton and doesn’t like Bush, but has to walk that careful line because while it is perfectly acceptable to mock a Democratic Commander-in-Chief, you cannot do so when it’s a Repub. There are some non-repubs in the military, but you tend to keep your head down. Being too public in disdain of the CinC can be bad for an officer’s career. And it is against the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
It has been very difficult in the last few years, especially during the election mess in Florida. I have been reminded, when I get a little to emphatic about my feelings about Bush, that he is my husband’s CinC. I remind them in return that Clinton was their husband’s CinC, and that kinda shuts them up.
But I find it very interesting that AFN (the military television service) has been showing “ads” reminding us that it is against the USMJ for officers to insult the CinC. I have been in Europe for seven years, from 86 to 91, and from 2001 to now. I do not ever remember them having these announcements before, and they were not airing them before the Iraq mess started. But there has been some negative views and feelings expressed about Bush in the military press, by soldiers who are in Iraq.
Back to the Clinton question — my general impression is that the average soldier and officer didn’t like Clinton too much, and Hilary is pretty vehemently hated among the officers’ spouses.
We are assigned to NATO right now, so it’s been easier because I have friends who are German, English, Scottish, Canadian, etc, who are not too fond of Bush either. My international book club is planning to read Hilary’s book, and some of the women, mainly American, object. Could make for a very interesting meeting…
There. I hope this answers your question. Without being too-long winded…
Thanks julie, that was actually very interesting.
Any time, Raznor.
One thing I do not know is if anyone has an estimate of how much of America’s military forces are not Republican. I heard something during the last presidental election that about 20% is Democratic, but I don’t remember where I heard that…None of the Americans I know here are openly non-Repubs…