December 18, 2003
THE CONSENSUS WE CAN'T ADMIT TO OURSELVES:
Bush's gay-marriage tack risks clash with his base (Susan Page, 12/17/03, USA TODAY)
President Bush is trying to walk a fine line on the question of gay marriage, which is supplanting abortion as the most volatile social issue in next year's presidential election.A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll conducted Monday and Tuesday underscored the perils of Bush's approach. It showed the intensity of feeling among those who oppose same-sex unions.
On Tuesday, Bush said for the first time that he would, "if necessary," support a constitutional amendment that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. But he said he wouldn't prohibit "whatever legal arrangements people want to make" that are "embraced" by states. [...]
In the poll, Americans opposed recognizing same-sex marriage by more than 2-to-1. That is a slightly higher level of opposition than earlier this year. Analysts say there has been some backlash to recent court decisions regarding gay men and lesbians. Last month, Massachusetts' top court in effect recognized a right for same-sex couples to marry.
The divide on the issue is wider among those who feel strongly about their position. By more than 3-to-1, strong opponents outweighed strong supporters.
Not only does that seem like the position we'll all eventually arrive at--if we're going to tolerate homosexuals let them have some arrangement, but certainly not marriage--it also illustrates just how little real political distance there is between even the "extremes" in America. This is, after all, pretty much the solution that progressive Howard Dean arrived at as Governor of Vermont, though he now pitches civil unions as a pro-gay measure. President Bush and his fellow social conservatives will arrive at the identical spot but pitching it as pro-straight marriage. As on so many issues we all conform to a quite narrow view and then fight like tigers over how we justify it. It's more a matter of why you believe than what you believe. Posted by Orrin Judd at December 18, 2003 12:24 AM
Andrew Sullivan has been driving himself crazy trying to parse the President's statement. I think that what the President was saying (and I agree with Andrew that in this case W is inarticulate like a fox) is that he will support an amendment if DOMA is ruled unconstitutional. That is, the individual states can do whatever nutsy thing they want, but if the Court's hold that the full faith and credit clause requires other states to go along, then the administration will back an amendment to fix that.
Posted by: David Cohen at December 18, 2003 7:40 AMI think David is about right. Wasn't this discussion close to his comment about judicial restraint?
Posted by: Rick T. at December 18, 2003 10:27 AMThe main debate here has always been whether or not marriage is primarily a religious or a civil institution. In this case there currently is no seperation of church and state, which leaves both sides battling for the right to define the term.
Hopefully, a legislative decision at the national level will be worked out, and some sort of civil union situation for property rights and insurance benefits can be worked out, but I have a feeling the Supreme Court will end up making the decision for everyone in the end.
Posted by: John at December 18, 2003 10:43 AMLet's see,convince the pro side that civil unions(or something)is the same as marriage while conv
incing anti's that it's also something less than marriage despite the big,splashy gay weddings.
Some trick if you can pull it off.
Posted by: M. at December 18, 2003 2:49 PMSo, Americans are 2-1 against gay "marriage", and 3-1 strong opposition to strong support.
Sounds like a real winning issue for the "gay rights" crowd when some court declares that it is required, huh?
Not.
Has there ever been any issue that was instituted in the face of opposition this strong?
"Has there ever been any issue that was instituted in the face of opposition this strong?"
Forced bussing,affirmative action,purging any hint of religion from the public square,abortion.
Yeah,quite a few,actually.
And to annoy some,let me add mass immigration to the list of things imposed against the public will.
Posted by: M. at December 19, 2003 2:46 PM