Replies

Has anyone else noticed the complete disingenous position the Democrats are taking on this issue? Kerry claims to personally oppose gay marriage, while he supports civil unions (that's a contradiction in itself since they are basically the same thing, but not my main point). But as a matter of policy he thinks the matter should be left up to the states.

Nevermind that Kerry voted against the federal Defense of Marriage Act which did just that, but the truly despicable part is that he knows full well that the type of judges he would nominate would not only support gay marriage, but that they would force them (or civil unions)on the states, thus negating his phony belief that states should be able to decide. Then he and his ilk could just sit back and say 'the courts have spoken, its time to move on', which is likely their true strategy.

It will play out one of the following ways: A federal judge/court will rule that gay marriages must be accepted, leading to a Supreme Court showdown. And considering how O'Connor sold out on racial preferences, one can't be to confident. Or a federal court will rule that gay marriages or civil unions performed in one state must be accepted by all other states due to the Full Faith and Credit Clause, thus voiding the federal DOMA. Either way, the result will be the same---gay marriages nationwide.

And the distinction between gay marriages and civil unions is important as it relates individual states, because while the people of Vermont, Mass, or Calif may be mollified by the semantic game of substituting a euphemism like 'civil union' or 'domestic partnership' for marriage to the point where they support legally recognizing these gay - without the word 'marriage' - marriages, most other states would not voluntarily acknowledge civil unions for the forseeable future, while many probably never would voluntarily.

Thats' why the Musgrove Amendment truly should be accepted by those Dems claiming to oppose gay marriage but suport civil unions, while believing states should have the final say. This Amendment would ban gay marriages, thus providing conservatives with a symbolic victory in the cultural war by protecting the word 'marriage', but at the same time would allow states to voluntarily adopt civil unions (i.e. not have them ordered by courts) which would be a victory for the left so long as they could be happy having the institution of marriage and not the name (that they arent, that they demand the word too is a big sign of their extremism and boldness in telling Americans to take your beliefs and fuck off) while again at the same time would permit the people of other states decide for themselves whether or not to recognize the civil unions performed in other states, which would be a victory for conservatives willing to accept that while most states would still reject them, there are many states where they have simply lost the cultural war.

This should be one of the tactics used by Republicans and conservatives debating this issue--point out the untenable, contradictory nature of their position in saying one thing while appointing judges who would do the exact opposite. I have yet to see any of the talking heads take this obvious approach, and I'm sorry to say I just can't see President Bush being aggressive enough to bust Kerry for this in a debate, seeing as how it might get in the way of 'compassionate' conservatism.

I know what the GOP braintrust fears is scaring off those suburban soccer moms who say they oppose gay marriage, but yet are fans of Queer Eye and Will and Grace, so they might be put off of someone pushing an Amendment that while it puts into policy their stated conviction, at the same time will be called mean-spirited and bigoted by the media. This is easily countered by pointing all the stuff about how it would allow democratically enacted civil unions for the states that want them.