Could the FMA make a comeback in 2006?

January 16, 2006

After the 2004 elections, several far-right groups insisted they were responsible for turning out “values voters” who tipped the scales for the GOP. In 2005, they wanted a vote on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage as a reward. They didn’t get it.

It seems even less likely to make a comeback in 2006, but to according to what Rick Santorum told James Dobson late last week, congressional Republicans could impress the party’s far-right base by making the amendment an “important” part of this year’s legislative agenda.

During the January 12 broadcast of his radio program, Focus on the Family founder and chairman James C. Dobson complained that the Republican Party, in control of the White House and Congress, has “very little … to show for it” in terms of accomplishing the goals of “the pro-family agenda, the pro-moral agenda, [and] the sanctity of life.”

In a discussion with Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) about the relation of family life to social policy issues, Dobson said he wished that Republicans “would begin to take stock of what they’re doing to the family,” and lamented that “very little … has been accomplished that relates to … conservative social issues,” adding that “there’s just nothing going on.” Dobson speculated that Americans “are pretty irritated” at both Democrats and Republicans for that reason.

In response, Santorum expressed his desire for Congress to vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment, calling it “one of the most important pieces of legislation” for 2006. Santorum described as “foundational for our society” the amendment’s purpose of “protecting marriage … between one man and one woman,” and spoke of a recent meeting of the Arlington Group, a coalition that, according to its founder Paul Weyrich, is the source of “the effort to put marriage on the ballot in eleven States.”

Santorum probably should be a little cautious about how much he’s willing to promise characters like Dobson. GOP leaders aren’t terribly interested in making this a campaign issue, and even if this nonsense was brought to the floor, it would fail by a fairly wide margin, making the Dobsons of the world even more incensed.

Stay tuned.

But it would distract from Abramoff and Delay.

  • Ya know, I think there’s a simple solution to this whole gay marriage farce. All we need do is refine a few definitions.

    Civil Union: the legal joining of 2 people performed by a judge, JP, ship captain, or other legally authorized individual and ratified by the state. The state can define who is eligible for civil union as they see fit, subject to state and federal laws and/or constitutions. The state can also determine any prerequisites to civil union, such as licenses, blood tests, etc. It’s significance is strictly civil, with no religious implications.

    Marriage: the religious joining of 2 people performed by a minister, priest, rabbii, other individual authorized by his/her church and blessed by God. The various churches can define who is eligible to be married as they see fit, subject to the laws of their religion. The church can also determine any prerequisites to marriage, such as education, retreats, etc. It’s significance is strictly religious, with no legal implications.

    However, when a marriage is performed by a priest, minsiter, rabbi, etc who is so authorized by the state, on a couple who has fulfilled all the prerequisites and meets all the eligibility requirements for a civil union, a civil union will also be formed at that ceremony.

    In reality, nothing changes but it changes these debates from being about protection of marriage (which they aren’t) to being about denying gay couples the legal protections straight couples take for granted (which is the real goal).

    If this makes no sense or I’ve stated the blindingly obvious, in my defense I’ve been up for about 40 hrs working and I can almost see the air molecules vibrating.

  • Jim’s rational approach has been discussed many times. There are a few challenges to it, some based upon evidence and others based upon common sense. The details of ‘gay’ marriage feel different to gays than to non-gays.

    My neighbor was not allowed to attend the funeral of his partner of 25 years – because they were not married. The funeral home director handed the remains to his partner’s not friendly family. He told me over and over, “What do you think of this?” The eyes of this salt of the earth lifelong butcher at Safeway filled with tears. There are endless stories far more heartwrenching than this – about children being removed from their surviving parent, for one.

    First – Marriage is easily understood by people. Civil Union is understood by people with rational and logical minds – people who easily comprehend law and politics – not the majority of Americans according to some recent studies.

    In Vermont the far right fought Civil Unions hard for a year. In Massachusetts they did the same thing for a year. What was the difference?

    Civil Unions are also, in some ways ‘separate but equal’. The legislature can easily reduce the rights granted under civil union. If the goal is equality and equal protection than only one should be used. Marriage has a track record with the public and has legal depth.

    In Massachusetts the majority of citizens did not support ‘gay’ marriage. In the year it’s been in existence the majority of the public now support ‘gay’ marriage – what happened? The sky did not fall. Hurricanes hit the Bible Belt, not New England. People’s lives were relatively unchanged, except for florists, and the pocketbooks of some families who shelled out for weddings that would not have otherewise happened.

    Fear of the unknown replaced by knowledge and the familiarity – that’s more persuasive than logic to the majority.

    Jim – get some rest, and thanks for a post that lacks one single strand of cynicism. Hopefully some day we’ll have a rational society, or at least a majority rational…

    • Comments are closed.