Is the FMA Viable?
By Andrew Sullivan argues against quietism with respect to the Federal Marriage Amendment:
Orrin Hatch’s piece in National Review Online is a depressing read. Hatch was once skeptical of the Musgrave amendment – its sweeping removal from states any ability to determine who can get married, its denial of any legally enforceable benefits of any kind for gay couples anywhere in America. But Santorum has obviously gotten to him. It is becoming clear, as I predicted, that the anti-gay part of the Rove campaign is now in full force, as a means of galvanizing the fundamentalist base. Hatch also now adheres to the Republican establishment doctrine that there can never be a public mention of “gays, lesbians or homosexuals”. To give us that sliver of dignity – the right to be named in describing an amendment designed to strip us of basic civil rights for ever – would outrage the Dobsons and Falwells and Reeds. For them it is important to remember, gay people are just sick heterosexuals. For them, homosexuality is a mental illness, not a dignified part of a human being’s identity. It is so dispiriting to see one political party – as a minority comes of age – reverting to the attitudes of the 1950s. But that is what Bush has done. They’re pulling out all the stops on this one – and those who believe that this FMA is somehow dead or doomed are being culpably naive.
Whether Sullivan is in a very good position to call anybody “culpably naive” with respect to Republican cultural conservatives is, ah, questionable, but let it pass. I wouldn’t want to encourage anybody to be complacent, and it’s true that many people arguing that the FMA is DOA (cf. Glenn Reynolds) use this fact as a means of exculpating Bush for his disgraceful support of this proposed blot on American constitutionalism.
Still, Reynolds is obviously right on this one. Movement conservatives have enough power to ram legislation that requires a simple majority through, but 2/3 support for a constitutional amendment is another story. They’re not going to roll any of the northeastern moderates of the GOP, and there are enough Dems with safe seats that this doesn’t have a chance (particularly given that opposition can easily be couched in “states’ rights” terms.) I’ll say this: if Daschle can’t scrounge up 34 votes to defeat this crap, I’m never criticizing Ralph Nader again.