37 Comments

1. richard mcenroe:

No, what he said was, as I recall, that this was an issue that probably needs to be settled at the federal level, rather than by judicial fiat at the state level, especially judicial fiat that overrides the actions of the legislative branch.

US forces have just attacked into western Fallujah, seizing a hospital and two bridges.

Nov 7, 2004 - 5:15 pm 2. Kevin Murphy:

Roger–

I also support gay marriage (but, oddly, find civil unions an affront), and am in the middle on abortion.

But I take issue with your objection to amending the Constitution to settle policy matters. Justices do it all the time. What on earth do you call Roe if not a judicial amendment?

Nov 7, 2004 - 5:26 pm 3. goldsmith:

This is exactly the kind of thing that made those nose-folders among us hold our nose when we voted for Bush. I had hoped that the Bush Administration would realize that their mandate was about the war, not about doling out their political hay to the social conservatives right out of the gate, but I suppose they see their victory in the same way the media does: as a victory for the social right. I admit I never saw it that way, and I hope that wisdom and yes, conservative caution, prevails. But if the Republican party starts steaming ahead with this kind of thing, they will start throwing off all us “annoying libertarian” pro-defense types who I think played a large part in electing them.

Nov 7, 2004 - 5:27 pm 4. goldsmith:

That’s nose holders, not nose folders, though the image is an amusing one. And hello, I’m new commenting here, at least new since Roger installed the TypeKey thing. I used to comment here occasionally and just managed to get over my fear of registering.

Have a good trip, Roger, and hope you have a good time in New York (Brooklynite here).

Nov 7, 2004 - 5:31 pm 5. Terry:

Roger, I saw Rove on Meet the Press today. He said the opposite on MTP. Or, I should say he implied that no national amendment was necessary since those concerned states are handling this on their own.

It won’t pass anyway.

Nov 7, 2004 - 5:31 pm 6. Terrye:

I did not think that was what Rove said either, but maybe I misunderstood.

I don’t think this is a far right issue, most people do not support gay marriage. I am rather indifferent myself, just can’t seem to get worked up about it.

I don’t think this amendment will pass anyway, it requires to great a consensus. I wish the courts had left the issue alone but there is already talk that the DOMA may not stand in which case allowing states to make the decision will be subject to yet another court battle.

Nov 7, 2004 - 6:03 pm 7. Rick Ballard:

Here is the Fox News Sunday transcript. If anyone cares to wager on passage, I’ll take the ‘no’ side and lay odds. Why should Bush be expected to repudiate a stand taken? And why should the matter lay in the hands of unelected judges?

Nov 7, 2004 - 6:03 pm 8. bkochba:

i caught that show. Rove didn’t say that. Or rather, if he did, I sure missed it.

I really would have thought this kind of blatant distortion would lessen after the election.

Nov 7, 2004 - 6:04 pm 9. Huan:

I doubt Bush would press for a constitutional amendment. There is just not enough time in the next 4 years for that. And he has already publically stated he is good with civil union. I think this is where those who support gay marriage should start and work their way up to get all the same rights. Then all that is left is a name.

Bush will want to establish legacy for his tenure before time runs out. This is best through domestic policy and not achievement abroad. My bet is that he will push to “privatize” social security and/or reform the tax code before he will touch a constitutional amendment regarding gay marriage.

Nov 7, 2004 - 6:06 pm 10. bkochba:

i see i’m the one who missed it. apologies to reuters and all.

Nov 7, 2004 - 6:08 pm 11. Hylas:

This might be a good time to contact your representative in congress. Both parties are making noises about cooperation. Maybe we should explain to them what the mandate is: Fight the real war and cool down the culture war.

Nov 7, 2004 - 6:17 pm 12. Charlie (Colorado):

ROVE: Well, marriage is a very important part of our culture and our society. If we want to have a hopeful and decent society, we ought to aim for the ideal. And the ideal is that marriage ought to be and should be a union of a man and a woman.

And we cannot allow activist judges to overturn that. We cannot allow activist local elected officials to thumb their nose at 5,000 years of human history and determine that marriage is something else.

And the people have a right to be involved. And since this was forced upon the political process by activist judges, we need to do everything we can to keep it from being decided by activist judges.

I’m not even sure I’m in favor of straight marriage, but if we have marriage, gays should too. But this is pretty faint praise for the notion of an amendment.

Nov 7, 2004 - 6:19 pm 13. Piranha:

I’m still reassessing my position, but I am coming to the conclusion that the state should not be in the marriage business at all. Instead, it should only create some sort of civil union or civil partnership.

Those who care about marriage can get married by their rabbi, priest, minister, imam or other religious figure. I am convinced that people who have a religious marriage generally feel that the religious marriage is the only one that matters anyway, and is far more important than the marriage license that they obtain from the government.

Nov 7, 2004 - 6:33 pm 14. Roberts:

My understanding of Bush’s proposal is that the Constitution be amended to state that same-sex marriage cannot be read into any state’s law by court decision but that it could be adopted by a state enactment.

I don’t see why you would oppose that Roger.

Nov 7, 2004 - 6:39 pm 15. Kevin P:

Roger:

Gay Marriage,like abortion, is of course going to raise passions and bring heated discussion. I may be wrong but there is a concerted effort to make gay marriage the law of the land through the courts. Of course, for those in favor of the idea, this is the logical course of action because to try to achieve what they want thru the statehouses at this time would not work. If they can get DOMA overturned as unconstitutional then full faith and credit would make gay marriage in just one state the law everywhere. I am not a lawyer so maybe someone on this site can increase my understanding.

It would be better if both sides called a time out and waited until the war is over to settle this thorny debate. But as far as I know the legal teams on both sides have not stopped. I doubt that the ammendment would pass and maybe full faith and credit would not apply and this could be solved on a state by state basis, which is what I would prefer. But to expect one side to halt and wait until it is a done deal seems unrealistic.

Nov 7, 2004 - 7:01 pm 16. Doug:

On one other point, I know this seems strange to some people but Karl Rove is not the president. Bush is. ANyway, I fully expect Bush to press the issues that are important to the people who voted for him. That’s politics. I doubt it will be a priority and I doubt it will happen. Roger, to some extent this is the price you paid for voting for Bush because of the War on Terror. Me too. We knew it going in. But, as always, Bush and his people couch these issues in civilized terms and in the most moderate manner. If Bush’s opponents want to read viciousness or intolerance into a comment like Rove’s that’s fine. It’s a free country. I don’t really care what gays do and I am happy they have advanced their rights in society to be left alone. But on this marriage thing they pushed too far too fast. Something that didn’t exist five years ago has become yet another black letter test of tolerance to the left and they have jumped way out ahead on this one. There is clearly a consensus nationwide against gay marriage. The amendment is uneccesary. The real question is will the leftists learn? I doubt it.

Nov 7, 2004 - 8:12 pm 17. goldsmith:

My understanding of Bush’s proposal is that the Constitution be amended to state that same-sex marriage cannot be read into any state’s law by court decision but that it could be adopted by a state enactment.

That’s an incorrect understanding. HJ Res. 56, the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, federalizes a definition of marriage as between a man and a woman; it doesn’t simply forbid judges from enacting same-sex marriage on the state level, it specifically forbids it:

“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.”

The wording of this proposed amendment makes its intentions quite clear. And I am also convinced that the “legal incidents thereof” line is a deliberate attempt to complicate even civil unions. Thankfully, it will not be able to get a 2/3 majority in both houses, at least not with this wording. But to even propose something this divisive, especially at a time when there are so many real, actual threats to the American way of life, is a bad move.

For the record, I am gay, though I don’t really care that much about the symbolic moniker of “marriage”. I would be perfectly happy with civil unions that possess all the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage without the word marriage. For me this is about fairness and equality in taxation and other basic legal rights conferred on married people such as hospital visitation and inheritance, not about the State’s ability to confer acceptance and mystical affirmation upon my relationship with my partner. That is something the State neither has the power to grant nor forbid and it’s wise to keep that in mind whatever the outcome of this little episode.

I can’t say I wasn’t happy to see all those people getting ‘married’ in San Francisco last year, but I was perfectly content to have waited and pursued the issue in other ways. It’s easy to say that what happened there and in Massachusetts has forced the hand of the anti-gay forces, but that’s not really true either. The FMA has been on their docket long before Mayor Newsome married people by the Bay. It’s just that now they see the current political situation as the most fertile time to push the FMA forward.

Nov 7, 2004 - 8:37 pm 18. Dylan:

Hey goldsmith,

I want to hear your opinion on how SSM benefits the nation.

The reason I ask this is because the original intent of the marriage benefits you’d like to receive were enacted to mitigate the economic hardships incurred with getting married and having children.

By having kids, parents are providing tomorrow’s contributors. It is very much in the nation’s interests to encourage couples to have kids. Look at what is happening in Europe due to declining birthrates — they have to allow much more immigration than they can safely handle (the infrastructure to handle immigrants is being far outpaced by the amount of immigrants coming in) all in the hopes of having enough workers to pay for their social net. In the process, they are slowly losing their national heritage and opened the door to racially motivated violence.

Currently there a lot of people who marry without the intent to have kids. However, that doesn’t make the original intent behind the benefits meaningless. It just highlights that some people are willing to take advantage of a loophole.

I have no problems with giving SS couples most of the same legal benefits as HS couples (maybe not full access to adoption rights until after further study on the long-term impacts). I would need to be convinced about granting economic benefits to SS couples, since I currently have no idea how SS couplehood can potentially benefit a nation.

Nov 7, 2004 - 10:29 pm 19. Yehudit:

“We cannot allow activist local elected officials to thumb their nose at 5,000 years of human history and determine that marriage is something else.”

This type of rhetoric always makes me roll my eyes. For most of human history around the globe marriage was between one man and several women, plus concubines. Expectations of mutual monogamy are pretty recent, and the nuclear family is even more recent than that. But I doubt polygamy and extended families in one household is what Rove has in mind.

Nov 7, 2004 - 11:32 pm 20. Dylan:

Yehudit,

I believe that when Rove talks about 5000 years of human history, he is talking about Judeo-Christian history. In that context, marriage has been ordained to be between one man and one woman, as related to us in the book of Genesis.

That marriage evolved to include multiple wives and concubines does not show that God evolved His definition of marriage. It more likely shows that man tried to corrupt God’s original intent. God, in His mercy, decided to not punish man for it.

Nov 8, 2004 - 12:34 am 21. Mark Poling:

Pardon me for bringing up what I would have thought was an obvious point, but one that hasn’t been discussed anyplace I’ve seen:

Gay marriage has economic consequences as well as social/moral consequences. All sorts of legal and financial protections and obligations go with marriage. Employers must offer health insurance to spouses, to cite only the most obvious example. Businesses will have to scramble to stay in legal compliance every place gay marriage (or civil unions, depending on how the statutes are written) is enacted.

This may be the fire under all the smoke, and I’d love to know whether there’s money funding the fundies, and if so where it’s coming from.

Nov 8, 2004 - 5:29 am 22. Charlie (Colorado):

Goldsmith — your link is broken, and the language you quote is from the original Musgrave version, which I think has been superceded specifically to clarify the ability of states to establish civil unions. Can you come up with a current link?

Mark — if there is a financial motive underlying the support for the amendment, I suspect it’s mistaken. Exclusive, open gays number about 2 percent of the population, and if the number of those gays who marry is in proportion with the rest of the population, then we’re talking about at most around 1 percent of the population. It thus appears that the marginal cost of adding the possibility of gay civil unions or gay marriage is pretty small, probably negligible.

Nov 8, 2004 - 7:22 am 23. Steven:

Roger:

How do you feel about “faux mitzvahs?” For the uninitiated, this is a phenomenon involving non-Jewish kids having what amount to bar mitzvahs without the religious ceremony. They have been taking place in communities where the non-Jewish kids have enough Jewish friends that they attend plenty of bar mitzvahs, and decide that they want the same thing for themselves.

“Gay marriage” strikes me as a similar phemonenon. Non-jewish kids can have a big party if they want, but that doesn’t make it a bar mitzvah. Two gay people can live together and have all the same legal rights that spouses have (which is fine with me), but that doesn’t make it marriage.

Nov 8, 2004 - 7:35 am 24. Mike Silverman:

Steven, I think a better analogy is not the “faxu mitzvah” but rather the bat mitzvah. For thousands of years of Jewish history, being called to the Torah as a sign of adulthood was for men only. The bar mitzvah was and is a time-honored tradition. The idea of a girl becoming a woman by being called to the Torah was just unthinkable.

Some fairly radical Jewish thinkers 100 years ago created the first bat mitzvah ceremonies, which were condemned as trying to be something they were not, literally an oxymoron. Bat mitzvahs were condemned as sacreligious, as pathetic imitations of a real ceremony meant for boys becoming men.

We know how bat mitzvahs are looked at today.

I see same-sex marriage as the same thing — a “buying in” of a new population group into a an older tradition. One, which is seen by many to be an affront to tradition…just like the first bat mitzvahs were.

Just like a bar mitzvah is not named identically to a bat mitzvah even though to concept and purpose is the same, perhaps one day the difference between same-sex marriages and opposite-sex marriages will be seen as the difference of a word, with the underlying concept being basically the same: the uniting of two people in love.

Nov 8, 2004 - 8:13 am 25. stumbley:

This is just anecdotal evidence based on my personal observation, but among my family and friends, the objection to gay marriage is not to the union itself, but to the co-option of the word “marriage”. These people have no objection to the creation of civil unions, but do object to the use of the word “marriage” to describe them. As trivial as that might seem, it’s the basis for their resistance to the idea.

I have no doubts that a “marriage amendment” to the Constitution could not pass. In my opinion, the bulk of Americans support civil unions, but feel like the folks I know: they don’t want to call these unions “marriage”. To them, “marriage” means one thing and one thing only: the union of one man and one womanóno exceptions.

Nov 8, 2004 - 9:15 am 26. stumbley:

Addendum to my previous post:

I also think that the amendment issue is designed to place the whole gay marriage thing into the public sphere, rather than the judicial one. My guess is that the people proposing it realize that it has no hope of passage, but the fact of it will create a *public* discussion that decides the issue *outside* of the courts, as it should be.

Nov 8, 2004 - 9:18 am 27. RogerA:

What Charlie (C) said: I dont see the economic impact at all. I think there may be some issue with respect to adoption of children by SS couples–I dont think there is a sufficiently large body of literature to make any definitive judgments. Suffice for me to say, that if two people love each other enough to commit to a lifetime arrangment, they ought to do a decent job at raising kids. I believe the President is actually against gay marriage based on his religious convictions–and like federal funding of stem cell research he is taking a (dare I say) nuanced position. Ultimately, the framers of the constitution were smart enough to make it damn difficult to modify the constitution–Like Terrye, I dont see a constitutional amendment passing, and it appears to me the social tide is turning slowly in favor of same sex unions. Neither judges nor magistrates should be imposing their views on the state.

Nov 8, 2004 - 9:22 am 28. Silicon valley Jim:

We are in the midst of a war against Islamic fascism and this kind of divisiveness seems particularly ill-timed.

Well, okay. Was it somehow less divisive when a court in Massachusetts decides that the state’s (or is that commonwealth’s?) laws defining marriage as consisting of one man and one woman are unconstitutional? Or when the mayor of San Francisco decides that he can ignore California’s laws and issue marriage licenses? Would it be less divisive if, say, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided that Oregon had to honor a marriage of two men performed in Massachusetts?

I’m probably sounding somewhat shrill here. I don’t mean to. I would, however, like to suggest, with all respect, that you ask yourself whether your characterization of this as divisive has more to do with the fact that it conflicts with your position on the issue and less to do with the issue itself.

Nov 8, 2004 - 9:22 am 29. Ed Poinsett:

First of all there’s not going to be an FMA. It has less chance than the ERA of a few years ago. Bush is not going to spend his political capital chasing that critter.

Remember, Karl Rove is out of a job, Bush’s political campaign days are over. Karl needs to find something else to do, but pushing hard for the FMA is not one of them.

I am a redneck for Bush from a red state (Georgia), and I don’t go to church. It seems to me that abandoning procreation is a self correcting problem. The more gays we have in civil unions, and the more that left leaning women have abortions, there’ll soon come a day when we don’t have either to concern ourselves about. So let’s not condemn the gay lifestyle or worry about abortion, live and let live!

Nov 8, 2004 - 10:37 am 30. Mike Silverman:

This is just anecdotal evidence based on my personal observation, but among my family and friends, the objection to gay marriage is not to the union itself, but to the co-option of the word “marriage”. These people have no objection to the creation of civil unions

Speaking as a gay person, I am fine with civil unions as opposed to “marriage” — after all, if it tastes just as weet, what matter is thereif I call it a yam instead of a sweet potato.

However, the folks on the religious right who are pushing these state amendments do not think the way you or I do…most of the state amendments were written to prohibit not just gay marriage, but also civil unions or even the most limited domestic partner benefits. This would seem to indicate that the people pushing these amendments are opposed to gay couples, period, and not just “marriage.”

The results of the election seem to indicate that most voters do not see the distinctions you do either, and that voters will pass overbroad “kitchen sink” amendments.

Nov 8, 2004 - 11:40 am 31. stumbley:

Mike:

I respectfully disagree. I think the “religious right”ÔøΩ that is, the *fanatical* religious rightÔøΩis a much smaller portion of the populaton than most people figure. I don’t have a problem with the “gay lifestyle” (nor does anyone I know, for that matter), and I would actively work to defeat a constitutional amendment that would ban civil unions for gays. Most everyone I know would do the same. Again, I think it’s just the quibble over the word “marriage” (which, frankly, I find ludicrous, because as you say yam and sweet potato are the same).

Most of the “religious” people I know are much more of the “I don’t agree with it, and I’ll try to ‘lead them to God’, but I won’t make my faith a matter of civic policy” types. My guess is that fundamentalist evangelicals are much more of a minority than is generally perceived…especially by the media.

The argument I keep hearing is that gay marriage *would* have succeeded…given about 5-10 more years of gentle prodding. It’s the “judicial activism” stuff that has people up in arms.

For what it’s worth, my kids (18 and 20) can’t understand what all the fuss is about. When their generation is making the laws, gay marriage will be a part of the nation’s fabric.

Nov 8, 2004 - 12:16 pm 32. klrfz1:

“Religion is the opiate of the people.”

How many times have you heard that in your life? Most leftists do-gooders believe that. They want to save those of us who believe in God from the error of our ways. The gay marriage push is just another way to attack religion. There is already gay marriage in some U.S. states. But according to left wing do-gooders, we all have to be exactly the same. I bet that not even one percent of gay men actually want to get married.

Gay marriage is meant to do for marriage what the teacher’s unions have done for education.

Nov 8, 2004 - 12:26 pm 33. Pearl:

I’m to the right of center on many issues, however, I believe that recognizing a union of two people of the same sex is not a bad thing. When you look at how the institution of marriage came about, much of it had to do with property and rights to it and also the right of the couple to make decisions regarding their lives (such as health, legal, etc.)

I think the best argument I’ve heard for allowing gay marriage is the right of the partner to make decisions when it comes to health concerns of their partner. We have this problem going on right now with Schiavo. Who is the one to make these decisions. When you marry, you put your partner ahead of your family (parents, siblings).

I think this issue does need attention, but maybe we need to maybe verbalize it in a better way. Put the anger aside and talk about what marriage really involves. The only thing I opposed was the methods applied during this election season to allow judges to make the final decision. You need to appeal to the people of the country and I do think this can be done.

Nov 8, 2004 - 1:29 pm 34. Mike Silverman:

The gay marriage push is just another way to attack religion.

As a religious gay man, I would tend to disagree with your opinion.

There is already gay marriage in some U.S. states.

There is also gay marriage in some religions, which kind of contradicts your first statement.

I bet that not even one percent of gay men actually want to get married.

If you were to make such a bet, you would lose.

And you haven’t even guessed how many lesbians might want to marry!

Nov 8, 2004 - 1:41 pm 35. Assistant Village Idiot:

The more we can support the American people getting their news without MSM filters, the more we can trust the process. It is possible that Bush can wrestle into law some limitations on gay marriage, as he might do on abortion. But there is not the popular will for a complete ban in either instance. In the next 4 years, we will see either some restriction upheld or the matter returned to individual states. We will not come close to seeing a no civil unions/no abortions America, nor will we see its mirror.

And in a democracy, that’s how it should be. On both issues the absolutely no/absolutely yes support is about 20% each way. That leaves 60% in the middle trying to work out something we all can live with.

Nov 8, 2004 - 1:48 pm 36. Pat Curley:

The amendment will fail as others have commented. I am again amazed though at how quickly the gay rights group has turned the tables; IIRC as late as 1972 homosexuality was defined as a mental aberration; only a few years later, homophobia was the mental aberration. Now of course, anybody who stands in the way of gay marriage must be a religious whacko; never mind that there was no issue of gay marriage 25 years ago. Whoever’s doing their PR work deserves a raise!

I do think that gay marriage is not the real issue, that it’s a stalking horse for a number of legitimate issues (inheritability of property, visitation rights in the hospital, etc) that marriage is seen as a solution for.

To those who suggest that government get out of the marriage business altogether, forget it. The government has a legitimate interest in marriage and families (e.g., child support payments). No way they can avoid the entanglement.

Nov 8, 2004 - 1:53 pm 37. Kyda Sylvester:

At this juncture the matter of same sex marriage is less important than the matter of where such issues will be debated and decided. At the very least, consideration of a Constitutional amendment kicks the issue back to its proper venue.

As science and technology continue to move ahead at warp speed, we will face decisions about what was previously fodder only for science fiction writers. We can unite sperm and egg in a test tube and surely the technology exists for an artificial womb that can carry that embryo to term. What follows? Get yourself an egg, some sperm and the proper laboratory conditions and, bam, 9 months later sold to the highest bidder? Create and gestate life for the sole purpose of mining it for parts followed by termination? Who decides? Surely these are things nobody wants left to the courts. Let’s be very careful about the kind of precedents we set.

And FWIW, voters, even one issue voters, were not buying a pig in a poke when they voted for President Bush. It’s not often a politician is as clear about what he believes and what he intends to do. That being said, I don’t think a marriage amendment is high on his list of priorities.

Nov 8, 2004 - 5:29 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: