Andrew Sullivan on the Anti-Marriage Amendment

Posted on July 12, 2004 by Ampersand

My impression is that relatively few “Alas” readers – lefties that we are – read Andrew Sullivan’s blog often. But I think we should all read his discussion of the Federal Marriage Amendment, so I’m taking the liberty of quoting it here:

Meanwhile, there’s only one thing you really need to know about this week’s Senate vote on the amendment. And that is its backers would rather lose votes than propose a simple one-line amendment reserving marriage for heterosexuals. More tolerant alternatives – that would have simply said “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman,” or that would have constitutionalized DOMA, or that would have merely restricted courts – all these have been ruled out in favor of an amendment whose second sentence reads:

Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State or Federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. (My italics)

If you removed the italicized phrase, you’d have a reiteration of the first sentence. But that phrase is critical to the religious right. On its face, it would ban any court-prompted civil unions, domestic partnerships or indeed any protections or “legal incidents” for gay couples short of marriage. That means the end of civil unions in Massachusetts and Vermont, for starters. This is not, and never has been, about “protecting” marriage. If it were, the amendment would need just one sentence, and would stand a far better chance of passing. The amendment is about ensuring the second class citizenship of an entire minority. The timing is designed to exploit fear of that unmentionable minority into a winning strategy for president Bush’s re-election. Because of those two things, it is one of the most disgusting measures ever introduced into the U.S. Senate.

.

This entry was posted in Same-Sex Marriage. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Andrew Sullivan on the Anti-Marriage Amendment

  1. Paul says:
    July 12, 2004 at 1:56 pm

    As a reader of both your blog and Mr. Sullivan’s, I thank you for calling this point about the FMA to everyone’s attention. Many state-level version of the Marriage Amendment — Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, and Virginia, for example — also ban any attempt by legislatures, courts, or individual couples themselves to grant same-sex couples any legal status that would be any different from the legal status of total strangers. This is not about protecting marriage. It’s about attacking gays and lesbians, stirring up the religiositous right, and providing fodder for Republican fund-raising mailings.

  2. Jeff says:
    July 12, 2004 at 5:54 pm

    I read Sully, just to watch his brain spin. A more tortured guy I’ve never seen. Still, his prose is pretty and he rarely falls of the psychoctic-right cliff.

    As to the posting, it is typical of him to carefully parse this issue without seeing the larger problem. Yes, the GOP is trying to remove all possibility that gays will be treated equally under the law–certainly an aggressive act, even by GOP standards. But that’s exactly what the GOP does with most of their policy. Forget about careful consideration of public policy. For the GOP, it’s winner take all, and losers take a hike. Their policy is designed to screw particular segments of the population (children, women, the poor–well, everyone but the ultrarich)–it’s the method they use to solidify power.

    That Sully can disagree with his party on gay marriage but fail to recognize that it’s anything but anamolous is bizarre.

    (The Senate debated it today, and it doesn’t have adequate support.)

Comments are closed.