Bill Frist has announced that he plans to bring up the Federal Marriage Amendment for another vote in the Senate in early June, so expect the next few weeks to be filled with all sorts of nonsense about how gay marriage will make the baby Jesus cry and let the terrorists win. The amendment has less of a chance of passing than it had two years ago, when it failed to get the 2/3 required to pass it. So why bring it up again? Political posturing, of course. The mid-term elections are in November and it's vitally important to say that one's opponent voted against it 4 times rather than only 3.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
And does so with his usual brilliance and clarity. His post is in response to this one by Mark Olson. Jason sums it all up so perfectly:
I must begin by saying that I do not seek respect for the gay community. Far too often, the gay community has been spoiled, immature, ignorant, and yes, purely…
I love it. In 2004, the anti-gay marriage amendment only got 48 votes in the senate, far short of the 67 votes required to send it to the states. This year, supporters crowed that it would at least pick up votes, but not only could they not get the 2/3 vote required to pass the amendment, they…
Jonathan Rauch has a terrific column on the politics of the Federal Marriage Amendment (now apparently called the Marriage Protection Amendment). Why would the Republican leadership bother to bring up a bill for a vote that they know has no chance of passing? Pure demagoguery:
The MPA would amend…
The latest attempt to pass a constitutional amendment allowing Congress to pass laws against flag “desecration” failed by one vote in the Senate. It had already passed the House. Had it passed the Senate, it would surely have gotten the approval of the necessary three-fourths of the states.
Here'…
But they have to keep on trying, don't they?
They way I see it, a constitutional amendment is the only way to prevent same-sex marriage from becoming a reality.
I thought the point of the immigration fuss was for emotional leverage in the elections. It did certainly come up as an issue at a random time. Now they need another issue to shake their heads about in attack ads?
John said: They way I see it, a constitutional amendment is the only way to prevent same-sex marriage from becoming a reality.
And maybe not even that. Constitutional Amendments have been repealed before. I remember reading an article in a Seventh-Day Adventist publication (I don't recall which - it was just waiting-room reading at my wife's grandmother's nursing home) that acknowledged this, saying that Christians really needed to pick up on their Witnessing, because unless society itself changed, changing the law meant nothing.
I don't sympathize with their goals or even believe that they're possible to achieve, but I give the SDA's credit for going about it in a more sensible and humane manner.
Sometimes I have to wonder what other fundies - and don't get me wrong, SDA's *are* fundies - think: do they really believe that if they outlaw (for example) homosexuality and abortion, that homosexuality and abortion will disappear? Or do they just want to ostracize and punish the "sinners" (all the while protecting themselves and "the children! Won't somebody please think about the children!" from contamination, of course)? Either way, I can't help but think that the ancient Palestinian carpenter who hung out with hookers and had some definite ideas about who had the right to cast the first stone would not approve.
But I digress.
My original point is: if the Religious Right couldn't get this done with this President and this Congress, they can't do it at all - and they'll never get a better chance. Their power is only going to wane from here on, at least on this issue - they complain that homosexuality is growing more acceptable all the time, and I think they're right. It's just that I think it's a *good* thing.
They just want to get in a few last kicks in their legislative queer-bashing while they can.
The Republican party - The party of fear, hate, and loathing.
do they really believe that if they outlaw (for example) homosexuality and abortion, that homosexuality and abortion will disappear? Or do they just want to ostracize and punish the "sinners"
A lot of fundies see the acceptance, not just tolerance, but acceptance of so many "sinfull" behaviours as another sign of the fullfilment of Revelations and the end of this world. I think that many of them are afraid of that happening and think that outlawing these behaviours will stave off teh end. It is easy for them to say that they look forward to the second coming but secretly it scares the hell out of most of them. It has made for some lively debates with people in my church. I tend to argue that a. sin is between an individual and God,(a major tenet in my church's belief) and b. the bible clearly deliniates that Christians are to be in the world not of it - i.e. we live by our faith in spite of what teh "world" throws at us. Oddly, even many of the conservatives in my church agree with me after we get to the heart of the argument. The brick wall usually doesn't come up until I mention my belief that the legal standing afforded marriage should be abolished. . .
Funny thing is, even people like James Dobson can't stay on message:
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/5/18/9515/98751
I remember reading an article in a Seventh-Day Adventist publication ...that acknowledged this, saying that Christians really needed to pick up on their Witnessing, because unless society itself changed, changing the law meant nothing.
In the one sociology course I took in college - the Sociology of Protest Movements - there was a theory that went something like "legislation is the last gasp of a social movement." When a social movement has to resort to encoding in law what had once been accepted as the norm in society, it is doomed to failure, because social change is nearly impossible to reverse. In a situation like this, the social concept of marriage is undergoing a change, and the state and federal laws and amendments are the last opportunity for those that resist the change to stop it - and even they must know it is a lost cause in the end. All of this legislation can be reversed, and the opinions of the younger generation clearly show in what direction society's beliefs are moving.
Even if the far right were able to get this amendment passed, it likely would be as big a failure as Prohibition, because both amendments tried to blame all sorts of social ills on a specific cause. The removal of that cause in the case of Prohibition did nothing but exacerbate the social problems, and its relatively quick reverse.