Sanctity bumps up against rights(Ellen Goodman Barf Alert)

Spokesman-Review ^ | 03/04/2004 | Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe

[writer33]

The issue of gay weddings is no simple matter, Ellen Goodman says.

BOSTON -- I understand the compulsion to “energize the base,” but couldn't Republicans have found something a little less toxic than this brew of Gaytorade?

When President Bush came out in favor of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, he was stirring up a cocktail to keep the cultural warriors in the party. It's assumed that this elixir will give them a sugar-high all the way to the election.

On the other hand, Anybody-But-Bush Democrats have greeted the infusion of this issue into the campaign with all the gusto reserved for the entrance of Ralph Nader. They could live without it.

There's no doubt that the Democratic candidates, especially John Kerry, would have been happier if the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court hadn't ruled until, say, late November. They would have been better off if the San Francisco mayor, a Catholic heterosexual who ran as the conservative candidate and who contributed $500 to the Bush 2000 campaign, hadn't suddenly gotten marriage on his mind.

But we've all gotten into the habit of assuming the cultural warriors on the right are the winners. Who says the constitutional ban is a Bush boon? Who says the “energized right” might not look like the “hyperactive righteous” by November?

First of all, for better or for worse, in sickness or in health, the positions of the candidates aren't all that different. Bush opposes same-sex marriage, but he's left room for the states to expand partnership rights. Kerry and Edwards are both personally opposed to gay marriage but actively favor marriage-in-everything-but-name.

The constitutional amendment is an attempt to draw a dividing line through the common ground. After all, a majority of Americans oppose gay marriage but also -- depending on how you ask the question -- oppose an amendment banning it. That majority includes many conservatives.

The hard-core culture warriors, the same folks who refused to fiddle with the Constitution “merely” to extend equal rights to women, now want to amend it to deny rights to homosexuals. But there are traditional Republicans, averse to government intrusion, saying “not so fast.”

Let's remember that conservatives as well as liberals have gay people in their neighborhoods, workplaces, PTAs and families. I am uncomfortable with the Web sites asking Mary Cheney to come out against her dad the vice president. But a constitutional ban on a daughter's wedding ought to make the dad uncomfortable too.

By and large, Americans want to protect marriage, but they also want to protect individual rights. In this election, the side that gets to frame the issue may win, or at least defuse the debate.

So what happens when the president talks about protecting the sanctity of marriage with a constitutional ban? What happens if and when the Democratic opponent pushes the debate back to the turf of rights? The president will have to explain which of the rights that accrue to straight couples he would deny gay couples. Would he deny them the right to visit their partner in a hospital? The right to a partner's health insurance? The right to sponsor a loved one for immigration? The right to Social Security survivor benefits, automatic inheritance, family and medical leave?

Which marital rights would be at risk or remain at risk under a federal ban? An appeals court in Florida recently denied a gay couple the right to adopt the HIV-positive child they've cared for since infancy. Brother Jeb agreed. Would Brother George?

Granted, both Kerry and Edwards have tortured arguments to explain their stance for marriage-in-everything-but-name. When asked by Dan Rather in last Sunday's debate, “What's wrong with gay marriage?” Kerry took a quick sidestep. He's dug a deep hole in his argument by favoring a state ban while opposing a federal ban. Say what, John?

But how will the president explain his desire to add “sanctity” to the secular Constitution? To codify the denial of rights in the national sacrament?

James Carville said he was opposed to gay marriage until he realized he didn't have to have one.

As you can tell, I don't hear the alarm bells in the wedding bells. We are watching attitudes change, one generation replacing another, in the direction of full acceptance of gay Americans. We're not there yet. But this time it's the conservatives pushing the most radical idea: a constitutional freeze on social change.

In 2004, the cocktail meant to energize the base may yet prove too acidic for the popular taste buds.

[writer33]

"But this time it's the conservatives pushing the most radical idea: a constitutional freeze on social change."

And this generation doesn't want gay marriage. I'm sick and tired of being told to be tolerant. I don't have to be. If they'd just follow the law, there wouldn't be a problem. If activist judges would stay out of the Consitution, there wouldn't be a problem. But they won't and that's why it has been proposed, Ellen.

[alloysteel]

The Republicans, and more especially, the Bush Administration, did NOT inject the issue of gay marriage into the public discussion. All the activity has come from judges who made rulings they were not even called upon to make, and from elected Democrat officials who defied the law as written, and with this infraction, seemed to believe they were immune from prosecution. The Republicans were inclined to allow the issue to be resolved by legislative action, but the initiative seized by judicial activism seems to have forced some kind of legislative response.

Judges who won't pay attention to existing law are not much deterred by simply passing more laws. Time to call the credentials of these wannabe legislators into question.

[writer33]

"Judges who won't pay attention to existing law are not much deterred by simply passing more laws. Time to call the credentials of these wannabe legislators into question."

I'd agree. It's time we got some legislators with some backbone.

[Paleo Conservative]

Oh Ellen Goodman. At first when I read the title, I thought it said Ellen Degenerate.

[GulliverSwift]

I am so sick of Ellen Goodman. She is morally confused while at the same time is full of pronouncements. She never does any research for if she had, she'd have realized that the Republican Party was founded by Christians who were anti-slavery. Thus, it is believing Christians who are the traditional Republicans.

Further idiocy: Goodman believes that an amendment would ban people from holding marriage ceremonies. Um, last time I checked, most people don't take their vows at the county clerk's office or sign a form right after saying "I do." Thus, people could hold all the ceremonies they wanted to, just as they can right now.

At the end, she talks about conservatives wanting a "freeze on social change." Well, last time I checked my history book, we had an amendment which was ratified and later overturned. That sounds like a real "freeze" to me.

Also notice that Goodman conveniently avoids ANY argument against queer marriage. She's probably never even heard any of them. People who think like her and are not self-interested (i.e. are normal and are not related to those with the psychosis of homosexuality) do so not out of thinking but sheer emotion. No only does she avoid refuting any arguments against her belief, but she also declines to make any argument in its favor aside from "Only a freak would oppose gay marriage."

[JimSEA]

The Republicans, and more especially, the Bush Administration, did NOT inject the issue of gay marriage into the public discussion.

Thank you for saying that. Here in Oregon, a group of county commissioners met in secret to spring gay marriage on us with, of course, no public discussion what so ever. They follow it up today with the local rag, the Oregonian blessing it with the exception of an editorial by Steve Duin posted on FR earlier. The opponents of gay marriage are called vile, hateful and divisive. The first day of gay marriage is called "a day of courage, newlyweds and love." Nicholas Kristof's editorial, What if racial bias had been thus enshrined?", is reprinted. Finally, a writer opines that "we can't leave civil rights to the public." Several others equate interracial marriage and gay marriage (especially loathsome to me who has been blessed in an interracial marriage for the last 36 years).

[Paul Atreides]

They would have been better off if the San Francisco mayor, a Catholic heterosexual

This is about the second or third article going out of its way to point out that the mayor of San Francisco is a heterosexual. It reminds me of actors who have to stress that they are straight in real life, although they portray a homosexual on film.

[txzman]

God to Ellen at the end of time:

Here, have a bit of MY sanctity!

[Cato the Censor]

Ellen and her arrogant crew of likeminded socialists are in my face again.Go away, Ellen !

[writer33]

Paul,

Whoever controls the activist judges, controls the world. HA!

[freep_toad]

"...the same folks who refused to fiddle with the Constitution “merely” to extend equal rights to women, now want to amend it to deny rights to homosexuals...

and

"...To codify the denial of rights in the national sacrament?"

  As I saw posted elsewhere on FR, there is no denial of rights to gays. Each gay man or woman has the same right to marry a member of the opposite gender as everyone else in America.
  What is truly going on here - and you'll never get the gays to admit such - is the fabrication of a non-existant "right" designed solely to satisfy and provide legitimacy for one's own sexual desires.

  As an aside: Please correct me if I'm wrong, but, I believe I heard something today (on either Rush or Hannity) about a currently married couple wanting to have the right to add a third person to their marriage. Is this true?

[Paul Atreides]

Then, that would be Baron Bubbamir Clintonnen, and Gaius Hillary Rodhaim.

[writer33]

"I am so sick of Ellen Goodman. She is morally confused while at the same time is full of pronouncements. She never does any research for if she had, she'd have realized that the Republican Party was founded by Christians who were anti-slavery. Thus, it is believing Christians who are the traditional Republicans."


You're absolutely right. John C. Freemont comes to mind.

[Alouette]

Ellen Goodman is a bitter, angry, senile, retarded, incoherent nattering old bitch. And she's ugly.

[writer33]

"As an aside: Please correct me if I'm wrong, but, I believe I heard something today (on either Rush or Hannity) about a currently married couple wanting to have the right to add a third person to their marriage. Is this true?"

I believe it was Sean Hannity. I think it was during an interview on his show today, while in Colorado Springs.

[writer33]

Now, Aloutette. You're not having regard for her feelings. :( Is that the kind of legacy you want to leave behind? :) Just kidding!

I thought it was amusing. Remember, feminism is to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream. I believe Rush says it best.

[writer33]

God to Ellen at the end of time:

Here, have a bit of MY sanctity!


Txzman. I believe Ellen would rather keep God out of it right now. After all we can't have moral influence in a time when we need to determine rights. (Sarcasm for your enjoyment)

Chris

[KC Burke]

...about a currently married couple wanting to have the right to add a third person to their marriage. Is this true?

< HowardStern >So my wife could have a "Gay Marriage" to add to our real marriage and add a lesbian partner to our penthouse? I'll have to buy oysters today. < /HowardStern >