‘It all relates back to the family’

June 6, 2006

As far as the political debate goes, [tag]Republicans[/tag] seem to have a little trouble offering a compelling explanation for why the [tag]Federal Marriage Amendment[/tag] is necessary now. Senate Democrats are effectively sidestepping the issue itself by asking, “Aren’t there better things we can do with our time right now?”

So, what’s the right’s response to this question? [tag]James Dobson[/tag]’s [tag]Focus on the Family[/tag] emailed an alert to its membership yesterday with a comment from a conservative law professor that responds to the Democratic suggestion that the Senate is wasting time.

Pepperdine Law School professor Doug [tag]Kmiec[/tag] disagreed the debate is frivolous.

“This debate takes nothing away from the other national issues of the day,” he said. “Getting Iraq settled and moving toward a civil order is very important. Getting [tag]gasoline[/tag] prices back down to affordable levels is very important. But to some degree, it’s all important, because it all relates back to the family and the household. But if the family is itself being undermined at its foundational level, then do we really care what the [tag]price[/tag] of [tag]gas[/tag] is?” (emphasis added)

It seems to me this is the kind of comment the left should do more to highlight. Let’s tell as many voters as possible that, as far as the right is concerned, a constitutional amendment to address a crisis that doesn’t exist is critical — and conservatives “don’t really care what the price of gas is.” Let’s see how this goes over.

Given the most recent [tag]Gallup[/tag] poll, such a tack probably wouldn’t resonate particularly well. Gallup asked respondents, in an open-ended question (no options to choose from), to name what should be the “top priority for the president and Congress to deal with.” Iraq was the clear winner with 42%, followed by oil prices and energy policy at 29%. Of the 27 responses that generated measurable data, gay marriage was a no-show.

Let the voter [tag]backlash[/tag] begin.

Honestly, I wish we would have a debate about extending government marriage protections to all adult couples who seek it as a basic premise of fairness in the American society. Pat Buchanan was pointing out on the McLaughlin group that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the constitution will require all states to recognize the marriage licenses granted in Massachusetts. And he is right about that. I think it is wrong-headed of the Democrats to try and down-play this issue. There is a real need to turn around public opinion on this issue and get people to accept civil unions and gay marriage. After all, in Vermont, it was the process of legislative investigation that brought a majority of the Vermont legislature around to the idea of extending civil unions. The more real Americans understand the issues of inheiritance, medical decision making and benefit extensions, the more they support creating fairness. And the more homophobes claim that marriage is too special to share, the more they make the point that it is unfair to share it.

It is never too early to recognize a person’s rights.
It is never too late to defend them.

  • Hey, guys

    Dubya is visiting Omaha today.

    Should I give a big “Howdy, dumbass” from everyone?

  • I agree with this analysis of what Dems should do. They need to mention over and over that James Dobson, and Conservative Law Professors, and Pat Buchannon are the force behind this amendment. Republicants can’t even establish a Constitutional platform for social policy. They let fringe theocrats drive the agenda. People who have become millionaires by abusing the faith of Christians. People who think Adam and Steve demand more attention than $3.00 per gallon gas, fruit boxes full or human heads in Iraq, global warming, and a faltering economy. It is time to move the mainstream back to the middle of the political spectrum by vilifying the extremists on the right and their political operatives.

  • 2 Manchu,

    Give him the one finger salute for me. Just check to make sure you are not wearing an inappropriate t-shirt when you arrive and by all means do not arrive in a vehicle with any bumper stickers.

    Good luck!

  • MNP,
    I’m sure one of my relatives has a camo NASCAR baseball cap I can borrow, then I’ll make a “Jesus hates fags” T-shirt.

    Once the welcome me as one of their own, then I’ll tell him to “go fuck yourself, Mr. Bush”.

  • 2Manchu–I wish you could “moon” him for me. But that would be asking too much.

    Also, is there any way to try and put together legislation designed as an alternative to FMA that does not necessarily single out gays but instead takes the tack that it provides additional benefits and protections to heterosexual marriage even though it also would protect gay unions or marriages? If such an animal could be devised, it might be a way to argue strongly regarding making “traditional” marriage even stronger and that protections to gay unions and marriages is just simply necessary to strengthen traditional marriages/families.

    Or is something like this impossible?

  • In related news today is 6-6-06. Fundies everywhere are waking up terrified, crossing themselves, sprinkling holy water on their english muffins etc.

    Why not put your fundamentalist neighbor at ease today with words of reassurance, like this: “Hey, is that a smudge on your forehead? And what’s that on your hand? No, wait a minute, never mind.”

    Then when he starts to answer interrupt him & say, “Sorry – couldn’t hear you for a second. What was that rushing sound?” Then laugh and walk away.

  • W is also scheduled to visit Laredo, TX today. The airport is off limits to the public.
    W will be whisked away to a safe location for a typical photo op in front of adoring idiots. Needless to say, I wasn’t invited.
    If I was, I would of been glad to moon him for everyone.

  • Pat Buchanan was pointing out on the McLaughlin group that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the constitution will require all states to recognize the marriage licenses granted in Massachusetts. And he is right about that.

    Buchanan’s a fear-monger and and is walking around with a full pantsload.. The “public policy” exception to the Full Faith and Credit Clause has long been used by states to not recognize marriages performed in other states that violate the public policy in the home state – i.e, underage marriages, bigamy, persons too recently divorced, etc. Full Faith and Credit applies to court judgements – not necessarily to licenses granted by states. Suppose I live in a state where the driving age is 17 – I can’t go to another state where the driving age is 16, get a license, and then expect the state where I actually live to honor it via the “Full Faith and Credit Clause” – it doesn’t work that way. The “Full Faith and Credit Clause” is nothing but a smokescreen when it comes to SS marriage.

  • “It all relates back to the family”, is probably a truer statement than intended when seen through a mafia lens.
    I think history will show that the Republican Party (and the government they control) has been taken over by a family of interconnected parasitic corporate interests in the model of mafia infiltration of legitimate businesses and unions.

    Voters will not hear about “the family” from MSM, but it all relates back to the family.

  • “Senate Democrats are effectively sidestepping the issue itself by asking, ‘Aren’t there better things we can do with our time right now?'”

    I agree with Lance. It’s an important issue to gays, and to the rest of us as well, because it involves the principle of fairness and decency to everyone. Why can’t the Democratic leaders stand up for equal rights for everyone?

    What the hell has happened to this country? Nobody stands on principle anymore, Republican or Democrat. They simply pander to their various constituencies.

    I take that back. The Republicans are doing a hell of a job standing up for the only people they represent – the filthy rich.
    They’ve got more integrity than the Democrats, who stand up for no one.

  • Since gay marriage is such an emotional topic for some folks, it may not be effective to look at the issue rationally. However, perhaps the time has come to take a super-rational look at this. Perhaps, the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. Make all government sanctioned, tax benefited relationships into civil unions. Then “Marriage” can be reserved for the religious institutions, who are free to exclude or include whomever they choose. It’s like divorce. The states dissolve marriage contracts as a matter of law. Some churches don’t recognize that dissolution. It’s their right, but the law still applies.

    My ultra-conservative mom had to back off on her civil union rant when I calmly pointed out that my husband and I had a civil union when we couldn’t get remarried in the church.

  • What’s going on in the Senate isn’t a debate on gay rights. It’s an effort to capture video images of Democrats taking what could well be a locally unpopular stand, as fodder for this November’s elections. That’s all they care about.

  • I may as well add my own thoughts on gay marriage.

    I’m a Demographer, retired from Western Washington University in Bellingham WA. Years ago it struck me that three classic interests in Demography – birth, death, marriage – received rather different treatment in our society. Birth and death are treated the same for everyone, including gays. Forming families (e.g., marriage) is different.

    Each event has a
    (1) religious ritual associated with it – baptism, funeral, nuptials.
    (2) civil certificate associated with it – birth certificate, death certificate, marriage/divorce certificate.

    These last three (legal forms compiled at the county-level and collected at the national-level) are the ultimate data of demography. The federal government has no interest in recording baptisms or funerals. Why collect it for nuptials?

    My point is that government takes care of the official stuff. Certificates are supposed to be issued/recorded for every instance of the demographic events. If anyone matches a church’s standards for acceptance by such an institution, the ritual can be practiced there; otherwise, who cares?

    So … I would remove from government the ritual marriage (nuptials) for everyone, straight or gay. The only legal matters are those which affect everyone, i.e., legal recognition of changes in rights and duties through birth, death and marriage. Leave religion/superstition out of it.

  • Ed, you have offered the obvious solution to the problem. Therefore it will never fly. I agree 100% btw. Civil unions for all. Seperation of Church and State. The State should not involve itself in a religious rite and the church should not involve itself in civil law. My wife and I were married by a JP in my parent’s livingroom. The ceremony was one thing but the marriage became official when the documents were signed and recorded. God was nowhere to be found.

  • Going back to the Tony Snow thread, the issue about marriage licenses is they accrue with some basic civil rights and contractual arrangements that are recognized by the state. They also effect one’s tax status.

    And the thing is, that marriage licenses are EASY. The costs to achieve the same benefits of mutual inheiritance and powers of attorney through a contract lawyer and court filings can be in the thousands of dollars. Marriage licenses do the same thing for maybe $20.

    So just tell all your conservative friends that the anti-gay marriage amendment is just meant to protect lawyers’ grotesque incomes. Don’t all conservatives hate lawyers?

  • Should I give a big “Howdy, dumbass” from everyone?

    Yes, please.

    On topic, I fully agree with Gracie and Ed’s points. Marriage should remain a ritual outside of the government’s purview. Civil Unions should remain within the sphere of government and should be the only thinkg that is reviewed when benefits, medical decision making, estates, etc. are under consideration.

    Keep the government out of our churches, synagogs, mosques, pentagrams, fairy circles, etc.

  • Ed, you have offered the obvious solution to the problem. Therefore it will never fly.

    Of course it won’t – to the religious right persons, the role of the state is to advance and enforce their position and their moral code – not as a vehicle for ensuring the rights of all. Any state recognition of non-religious sanctioned behavior wouldn’t be accepted because it “sends a signal” of approval. The “everybody should have a civil union” idea is *inclusive” – the relgious view is “us vs. them” therefore it never will fly.

  • “My wife and I were married on March 25, 1996. We have a good, solid marriage. Three kids, and no arguments during the what—3,725 days—and I’m STILL waiting for the Dobson gang to tell me why gay/lesbian marriage rights is a threat to OUR marriage. We go to Canada in November; the kids especially love the Christmas lights around Niagara, and that underground mall in Toronto is fabulous. The point is, there are lots and lots of gay/lesbian couples in Canada—married couples—and our marriage hasn’t suffered a bit for it. Nope—not a bit. In fact, it’s better today than it was yesterday; it was better yesterday than the day before; better—well, you folks probably have the idea. It was good on Day One, and it’s gotten nothing but better on a daily basis. And, silly buffoons the likes of Jimbo Dobson didn’t have a thing to do with it. Nope—nothing at all….”

  • FYI the “family” reprise is a specific strategy: bombard voters with the “threat” to the their family, and evoke a protectionist response. It works. (witness the past two elections)

  • The AP ran a story today which included this: “The Vatican issued a sweeping condemnation Tuesday of contraception, abortion, in-vitro fertilization and same-sex marriage, declaring that the traditional family has never been so threatened as in today’s world.”

    I want to know why the Roman Catholic Church doesn’t condemn such real threats to the traditional family as divorce and polygamy. I know they have a policy against such things, but they seem to be willing to tolerate them in other religions. Why don’t they condemn those churches that accept divorce (Protestantism) and polygamy (Islam)? Is it just possible that they prefer pragmatic alliances over long-established theological principle?

    Seems to me that contraception, abortion, in-vitro fertilization and same-sex marriage are not threats to the traditional family at all. In fact the first two make it possible for the traditional family to survive in today’s non-agricultural world, where reduced family size is an economic necessity for nearly everyone. In-vitro fertilization is just the opposite – making it possible for a childless couple to have that major component of the traditional family, children. And same-sex marriage, far from being a threat to traditional family structure, makes it possible for that structure to include same-sex lovers, i.e., it expands the scope of the traditional family.

  • Kudos to Ed’s comments in #22. What struck me in the AP quote is the term “traditional family.” The comment is obviously a yearning for the way things used to be and has no bearing on the way things are now.

    Considering that financial problems are often cited as the no. 1 reason for divorce, I’d say attacking Bush’s regressive tax policies would save more marriages than banning contraceptives (“whaaa?”), abortion, in-vitro (how does a means of having children destroy families?) and same-sex unions.

  • You know what? Fuck the Catholic church. There, I said it, I’ll never be running for office.

    They’re just anti-sex prudes. Unless of course it’s sex between priests and young boys, of course, for that they seem to have a tremendous compassionate tolerance.

    But this screeching anti-sex phobia is something they have in common with their excreable fundamentalist Christian enemies– who have no trouble joining hands to condemn sex of every kind, even if they are convinced that the pope is the anti-christ, and that Jews have horns, or whatever other horseshit they believe.

    It’s Puritanism pure and simple: the horrible gnawing suspicion that someone somewhere might be having fun.

    Enough of this nonsense. It’s time for fucking of every kind and shape for everyone who wants it! And no fucking at all for those who don’t want it! More sex, love your body, and love someone else’s body, as long as they want you to.

    These fundamentalists want less sex in the movies and TV and video games and on the internet? Great, then, we can agree: let’s instead have more sex in real life. Enough of the titillation and more of the real thing. Life is too short. Spread as much joy as you can, and share all the pleasure you please.

    • Comments are closed.