| jump to |
BATTLE HAS ONLY JUST BEGUN OVER MARRIAGE AMENDMENT
Last Friday, the Senate opened debate on a constitutional amendment to protect marriage, which reads:
"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."
Republicans expected Democrats to filibuster the marriage amendment. But the sudden flood of phone calls, faxes and letters this week from supporters must have made an impression. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., is in a tough fight for his seat against a GOP opponent who opposes same-sex marriage. Dems also clearly worry about how this issue might affect the Kerry campaign.
So on Monday the Dem leadership offered Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., a surprising deal: They'd stop the planned filibuster and allow a vote on the marriage amendment, but in return they wanted a promise from Sen. Frist: No changes to the language allowed.
Why that stipulation? Democrats are afraid the Republicans will propose a streamlined, simplified marriage amendment: "Marriage in the United States shall consist solely of the union of a man and a woman." Such a straight vote on the meaning of marriage would leave them nowhere to hide. And hiding is the essential strategy of Democrats on this issue.
Democrats complain the marriage issue is divisive. By that they mean it divides the majority of Democratic voters from some key special interests of their party, who provide money and manpower. If Democrats would do what the majority of their constituents tell pollsters they want -- protect the normal definition of marriage as the union of husband and wife -- marriage would not be a divisive issue; it would unite the great majority of Americans from both parties, and all races and ethnic groups. (The majority of African-Americans are particularly upset at the framing of same-sex marriage as a civil rights issue.)
Same-sex marriage activists know that their path to victory lies in confusing the issue, keeping the discussion on anything but marriage itself -- the sacred constitution, discrimination, hate, federalism -- to silence the public and let courts do their political work for them. So Democrats in Congress are pinned between the money and the votes.
Meanwhile, Republicans are facing the same political reality in a different direction. Almost 80 percent of Republicans oppose same-sex marriage. But major donors (and their wives) are not nearly as unanimous. Strong support for marriage raises friction at cocktail fund-raisers back home. The libertarian wing of the party, with so little electoral clout and so much intellectual influence, is deeply resentful about this issue. So, privately, a number of GOP senators express dismay at being forced to vote on same-sex marriage.
Why not just give up? Because marriage isn't simply a "values" issue; it really is a key social institution. And radical legal experiments on marriage can do serious damage.
Five Dutch scholars just issued a letter warning that the lengthy and successful campaign to legitimate same-sex marriage in the Netherlands appears to have had "serious social consequences": plunging marriage rates, a "spectacular rise" in illegitimacy. Good scholars, they note the social science evidence isn't yet in on the causes. You can't lay the blame solely on same-sex marriage. "There are undoubtedly other factors which have contributed to the decline of the institution of marriage in our country." But "at the same time, we wish to note that enough evidence of marital decline already exists to raise serious concerns about the wisdom of the efforts to deconstruct marriage in its traditional form." (For a copy of the letter, e-mail info@imapp.org.)
This week's vote on the marriage amendment is the first effort -- but not the last-- to take the meaning of marriage away from a handful of judges and put it back where it belongs: in the hands of the American people.
(Readers may reach Maggie Gallagher at MaggieBox2004@yahoo.com.)
