Senate Defeats Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment Without Really Saying Why
Wednesday June 7, 2006
Category: Gender and Sexuality
The Federal Marriage Amendment was once again soundly defeated today in the U.S. Senate. As was true in 2004, it received only 48 votes--despite the fact that five new senators who supported the amendment have come on board since the last time the Senate voted on the issue.
But there's a disturbing subtext to this 49-48 vote: In 2004, it was a 50-48 vote, with Kerry and Edwards abstaining (ostensibly because they were on the campaign trail). This year, it was 49-48--and the general argument advanced by the amendment's opponents was that gay marriage is such an unimportant issue that Congress should not even be wasting time on it. Take this statement from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), for example:
A storm is brewing; at the present time, 19 states ban gay marriage by constitutional amendment, and four state gay marriage amendments also ban civil unions and all other attempts to grant basic partnership rights to lesbian and gay couples. Although some states are in the process of recognizing same-sex couples, and others already have, seven states have put new constitutional amendments banning gay marriage on the ballot in November. Instead of taking a moral leadership position grounded in pointing out inconsistencies in the conservative argument, a position that could lead to significant national progress on lesbian and gay rights, Democratic party leaders have opted for a timid holding pattern--one that leaves conservatives to do all of the talking, and to propose all of the legislation, on this issue.
One would think that if there is one lesson Democrats can take from the Republican revolution, it is that Americans reward decisive leadership. Long-term political strategies based on fear of engagement tend to fail--and tend to deserve to. While some Democrats, most notably Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), have framed gay marriage rights as a moral, civil rights issue, the abject fear in Sen. Reid's words must be music to the ears of gay marriage opponents.
See also:
The Federal Marriage Amendment was once again soundly defeated today in the U.S. Senate. As was true in 2004, it received only 48 votes--despite the fact that five new senators who supported the amendment have come on board since the last time the Senate voted on the issue.
But there's a disturbing subtext to this 49-48 vote: In 2004, it was a 50-48 vote, with Kerry and Edwards abstaining (ostensibly because they were on the campaign trail). This year, it was 49-48--and the general argument advanced by the amendment's opponents was that gay marriage is such an unimportant issue that Congress should not even be wasting time on it. Take this statement from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), for example:
We owe it to the American people to focus on their needs, and not waste a single day focusing on partisan needs. That means setting aside an issue like the marriage amendment, and tackling the issue of gas prices instead.Something tells me that the estimated 1.4 million lesbian and gay couples living in the United States would not describe their basic rights as "partisan needs," unworthy of being addressed in any substantive way. As journalist Jonathan Ott put it:
Do they really want gay and lesbian couples separated at the emergency room door in the event of an accident or illness? Do they really think long-term couples should be denied the right to make medical or end-of-life decisions, which married couples take for granted? Do they really think that kids should be denied health coverage by one parent's health insurance because the law treats them as strangers? Do they really think it's fair for gay and lesbian people to pay the same taxes as everyone else, but to be denied the hundreds of rights, benefits and protections of marriage? Do they really think that a gay and lesbian couple that has been together for 50 years does not deserve the protections that non-gay newlyweds enjoy from day one?According to an April 2006 poll, 65% of Americans support extending at least some partnership rights to lesbian and gay couples; only 33% of Americans oppose both civil unions and gay marriage. Out of fear of alienating that 33%, many Democratic senators are refusing to admit that, in the midst of all this ostensibly irrelevant discussion of a Federal Marriage Amendment, there is a very real problem that lesbian and gay couples face that needs to be resolved.
A storm is brewing; at the present time, 19 states ban gay marriage by constitutional amendment, and four state gay marriage amendments also ban civil unions and all other attempts to grant basic partnership rights to lesbian and gay couples. Although some states are in the process of recognizing same-sex couples, and others already have, seven states have put new constitutional amendments banning gay marriage on the ballot in November. Instead of taking a moral leadership position grounded in pointing out inconsistencies in the conservative argument, a position that could lead to significant national progress on lesbian and gay rights, Democratic party leaders have opted for a timid holding pattern--one that leaves conservatives to do all of the talking, and to propose all of the legislation, on this issue.
One would think that if there is one lesson Democrats can take from the Republican revolution, it is that Americans reward decisive leadership. Long-term political strategies based on fear of engagement tend to fail--and tend to deserve to. While some Democrats, most notably Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), have framed gay marriage rights as a moral, civil rights issue, the abject fear in Sen. Reid's words must be music to the ears of gay marriage opponents.
See also:
Comments
This University of Virginia School of Law school article from 2004 is an excellent historical review of marriage bans…
———
October 4, 2004
Gay Marriage Opponents Mimic Objections to Interracial Marriage, Forde-Mazrui Says
Opponents of gay marriage use many of the same arguments as foes of interracial relationships did before Loving v. Virginia outlawed state bans on interracial marriage in 1967, said law professor Kim Forde-Mazrui at a talk sponsored by the Center for the Study of Race and Law and Lambda Law Alliance Sept. 30.
“If religious, scientific, moral opposition to interracial relationships-sex, marriage, and adoption-were wrong, notwithstanding the sincerity and good faith of those who believed in the opposition, then are the same arguments any more justified when they are used to oppose same-sex relationships?” Forde-Mazrui asked. “It seems that the similarities at least shift the burden….We’ve tried this before. We’ve learned in hindsight this is wrong” … [*snip*]
Read the full article at:
http://www.law.virginia.edu/home2002/html/news/2004_fall/forde.htm
Great stuff, Bob–thanks!
I had to trim the article down to an excerpt and add a linking URL, which was downright painful to do given the high quality of the piece. I’ll be adding it to my own category link section, and I hope everyone who reads this gives it a click.
Cheers,
TH
Thank you for articulating why I found the vote and the commentary and frames disturbing. It may seem unimportant to some, and there are other very important issues that affect us all. But my wife and I literally do not know our legal status–this is very important to us, and so is discrimination against us and our friends.
You make some good points. I hadn’t thought about it much before, but I’d have to agree that the “other things are more important” argument is a bit misguided. On the one side, what could be more important than the legal structure for families? And on the other side, what could be more important than fundamental rights of association? The issues involved are of utmost importance, although whether they should be considered in the framework of a constitutional amendment is another matter entirely.
In my opinion, part of the problem is that there hasn’t been a good national discussion of why we have marriage (or why we should) as a legal institution in the first place.
As I see it, there are three broad positions that are being taken by political figures:
– Traditional man-woman marriage yes, civil unions no.
– Traditional man-woman marriage yes, civil unions yes.
– Marriage for both gays and straights.
(The fourth logical option, abolition of marriage as a legal institution, isn’t being seriously considered.)
What is happening is that very few political figures are willing to take the third position. Conservatives in general take the first position, liberals usually the second (with variations in the shape civil unions would take).
What Democrats/liberals have failed to do — whether for political reasons or because they haven’t thought things through, I’m not sure — is articulate why the “middle” position is preferable to the third. You’re right. What they’ve done is entered some sort of a holding pattern.
What I’d like to see happen is that those who take the second position articulate why they’ve done so — is it because that’s what they believe, or is it because they hope to have it both ways politically?
I think there are good arguments to be made for the second position, or at least some form of it. One could certainly advance arguments for having man-woman marriage as a legal institution (although even the conservatives haven’t done a good job at that). In some ways (but not others), it has served us very well. And certainly one can make arguments for recognizing other types of relationships — something liberals have done, but conservatives apparently don’t want to face.
Where do I come down on the legal issues? I’m not sure. Sometimes I think it should be a states’-rights issue (as it has been for more than 200 years). Other times, I can understand the arguments for a national standard (which emphatically does not suggest I support the proposed amendment). What I do know is that the issues are being discussed in such a way that the core issue of the basis for marriage as a legal institution is barely being addressed.