A couple of people emailed me to ask why I didn’t write anything yesterday about Bush’s support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The truth is, I found myself at a loss for words and hoped that I might be more articulate 24 hours later. I’m not, but I’ll share my thoughts anyway.
I can’t say I’m terribly surprised the White House has done this. The very idea that Bush was an inclusive president who values compassion and respect for all Americans has always been fraudulent; the president simply made it official yesterday.
The charade is over; the mask has come off. Bush says he “trusts people, not government.” He says he wants to “expand liberty.” He says he wants an America where we “love our neighbor like we’d want to be loved ourselves.” The reality, of course, is that these are empty words from a callous and small man who prefers politically expedient division to compassionate unity. As far as the White House is concerned, if that means enshrining bigotry into constitutional stone, so be it.
There’s been some debate online and in the media about Bush’s true intentions. Some argue Bush isn’t really a homophobe; he’s just pushing this amendment to please his far-right political base. Others insist that the Massachusetts high court and the mayor’s office in San Francisco are offering Bush the opportunity to do what he’s wanted to do all along. As far as I can tell, however, his motivations are utterly irrelevant. Bush is either a spineless tool of radical theocrats or a heartless bigot. Is one really better than the other? What he’s thinking pales in comparison to what he’s doing.
There are multiple angles to this debate and I won’t even try to touch on all of them. But since this is a political site, I thought I’d take a moment to emphasize five observations about Bush’s announcement and their political implications.
First, I think it’s interesting anytime a constitutional amendment is proposed that limits the rights of individuals. The historical purpose of amendments is the exact opposite — to limit the power of government and empower citizens. Indeed, since the Constitution was ratified, only one amendment hindered people’s rights and it was ultimately the only amendment ever undone — prohibition.
And yet, on a purely philosophical level, so-called conservatives seem to embrace these kinds of amendments with alarming frequency. Amendments for state-sponsored prayer in schools, flag-burning, and gay marriage — the right’s perennial favorites — all have one thing in common: they give the government more power and the people less. It speaks volumes about Republican ideology (and hypocrisy).
Second, it’s extremely irritating to hear the media report, as the Washington Post did, that this anti-gay marriage amendment will protect the right of states to have civil unions laws if they choose. Bush said yesterday that he supports the rights of state legislatures to “make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage,” but the amendment Bush supports appears to do the opposite. Consider the text of the amendment itself:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
I’m not a constitutional scholar, but my read on civil unions would certainly fit under the “legal incidents thereof” part of this amendment.
Third, I don’t think it will pass. The two-thirds threshold in both chambers is a very high hurdle and Republicans may not even be able to keep their entire caucus together on this (though I welcome the fight between GOP libertarians and GOP moralists). Moreover, the public is deeply divided over the issue and apparently skeptical about the need to alter the Constitution. For this amendment to succeed, its backers will need a far stronger mandate.
Just as importantly, no one in Congress — on either side of the aisle — seems anxious to run with this. Even Tom DeLay, who would like to hold gays responsible for the decline of civilization, has said this amendment isn’t going anywhere fast.
Fourth, this is a dramatic flip-flop for Bush. In the 2000 campaign, Bush told Larry King that “the state [sic] can do what they want to do” about gay marriage. Not only is this yet another example of Bush saying one thing and doing another, it’s another reason his attacks on John Kerry as a flip-flopper ring hallow.
And lastly, I’m skeptical that it will have the desired political effect for the White House. Bush’s remarks yesterday reek of desperation. The public is clamoring for leadership on the economy, foreign affairs, the deficit, job growth, and health care. Bush has already failed dramatically on each of these issues and so he’s forced to embrace wedge issues that may excite his hard-core supporters but few others.
It wasn’t supposed to be this way for Bush. As the White House saw it, Bush would be coasting to re-election with high approval ratings by now. Bush could spend all of 2004 trying to convince everyone again (as he did in 2000) that he’s really a moderate with centrist values. Instead, he’s doing the opposite and intentionally kicking off a culture war in a 50-50 nation.
Culture wars are, by their very nature, divisive conflicts that generate anxiety and discord. Bush isn’t trying to dissuade heated rhetoric; he’s trying to intentionally fan the flames. I guess we won’t be seeing any “uniter, not divider” signs at the GOP convention this summer.
This is a huge risk that this could easy backfire. As the public perception of Bush shifts from compassionate moderate who wants to bring people together to a far-right ideologue who wants to target millions of Americans for discrimination — and enshrine that discrimination in the Constitution, of all places — the president’s public standing will change in unpredictable ways. Indeed, Bush is most likely to lose support from independent swing voters, many of whom take a “live and let live” approach.
Ultimately, when you take a deeply controversial issue, which has 46% support and 45% opposition, and tie yourself to it in an election year, you’re playing with fire. I look forward to watching Bush get burned.