When talk first started circulating about a constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage, I didn’t take it seriously. It’s awfully difficult to change the Constitution and a lot of people were just hyperventilating because the Supreme Court said gay people could legally have sex.
Things took a turn, however, when some of the nation’s top Republicans started trying to appease their religious right base by endorsing the amendment. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) announced his support for the measure in June, saying, “I very much feel that marriage is a sacrament, and that sacrament should extend and can extend to that legal entity of a union between — what is traditionally in our Western values has been defined — as between a man and a woman. So I would support the amendment.”
Bush offered his tacit endorsement of an amendment in July at one of his exceedingly rare White House press conferences. “I believe in the sanctity of marriage,” Bush said. “I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman. And I think we ought to codify that one way or the other. And we’ve got lawyers looking at the best way to do that.”
Oddly enough, Bush’s lawyers may be hard at work on this, but an unexpected split is developing within the GOP on the issue and some pretty high-profile conservatives are coming out against the amendment.
The amendment, H.J.Res. 56, is gaining in popularity among House Republicans. As of today, the measure has 75 co-sponsors, including 11 who added their names to the list just last week. It does not yet have a companion measure in the Senate, though I figure that’s only a matter of time.
Meanwhile, who would have thought a right-winger like Bob Barr would buck this trend and urge Congress to reject the amendment?
In a Washington Post op-ed two weeks ago, the former House member from Georgia took a surprisingly principled and consistent line by encouraging Congress to ignore pleas for a constitutional amendment and “leave marriage to the states.”
“A constitutional amendment is both unnecessary and needlessly intrusive and punitive,” Barr wrote. He added, “Make no mistake, I do not support same-sex marriages. But I also am a firm believer that the Constitution is no place for forcing social policies on states, especially in this case, where states must have the latitude to do as their citizens see fit.”
Perhaps best of all, Barr reminded us of a quote from Dick Cheney, of all people, who sounded like quite the liberal during the campaign when speaking on this issue.
“The fact of the matter is we live in a free society, and freedom means freedom for everybody,” Cheney said. “And I think that means that people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. It’s really no one else’s business in terms of trying to regulate or prohibit behavior in that regard…. I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that’s appropriate. I don’t think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area.”
Barr may not be in Congress anymore (fortunately), but apparently some current Republican lawmakers agree with his sentiment on this proposal. Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, a conservative Republican from Wisconsin and the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, took a similarly principled stand against the proposed constitutional amendment last week.
Sensenbrenner, whose committee is responsible for considering the amendment before it could reach the House floor, explained that he opposes civil unions and marriage for gay couples, but believes existing law — specifically the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act — is enough.
“It’s not necessary at this time to amend the Constitution,” Sensenbrenner said. He added, “It’s been done only 27 times in over 200 years. It’s very strong medicine.”
Who knew? This silly proposed amendment may actually end up exacerbating some of the relatively minor divisions with Republican circles that usually exist below the surface. The libertarian GOP wing will oppose it, while the moralist wing will demand it. Purists for states rights will question its practicality, while bigots will argue its necessity.
And if the GOP really does get divided over this, they’ll not only fail to pass this stupid thing, but they’ll lose an intended wedge issue for next year’s election.