GOP leaders are putting gay marriage back on the agenda. Will voters respond?
"A constitutional
amendment should never be undertaken lightly -- yet to defend marriage,
our nation has no other choice."
--President George W. Bush, radio address, July 10, 2004
"Unfortunately, activist judges and some local officials have made an
aggressive attempt to redefine marriage in recent years."
--President George W. Bush, radio address, June 3, 2006
2006 was supposed to be the election when the Noise Machine trotted out illegal immigration as its new Wedge Issue of the Year. That didn't turn you so well, but you know: The classics never go out of style.
Where would the GOP be if it didn't have gay men to run against?
This is more an attack on the courts than it is anything else. The
whole protection of marriage crap just happens to make a nice little
wedge for these closeted homophobes. Every little thing this group has
done has always had the undertones of seizing the courts. Bring it on
George! Just as much as your ilk have exploited single anti abortion
issue crazies, this too will rally a new Democratic base against
writing descrimination into the Constitution.
Sophisticated political issues are a feeble substitute for the
manufactured decadence of flags, fags and fetuses. It's kinda like
sweeps week, sans the new episodes, series and specials.
Though Bush himself has publicly embraced the amendment, he never
seemed to care enough to press the matter. One of his old friends told
NEWSWEEK that same-sex marriage barely registers on the president's
moral radar. "I think it was purely political. I don't think he gives a
s--t about it. He never talks about this stuff," said the friend, who
requested anonymity to discuss his private conversations with Bush.
White House aides, who also declined to be identified, insist that the
president does care about banning gay marriage. They say Monday's
events with amendment supporters—Bush will also meet privately with a
small group—have been in the works "for weeks" and aren't just a sop to
conservatives.
Whatever the political maneuvering, it's the courts that could make the
next move. Last week New York's highest court heard arguments that the
state must allow gay couples to wed. A similar case in New Jersey was
argued in February. Decisions could come later this summer. At the same
time, judges recently struck down 2004 bans from Georgia, Ohio and
Nebraska. "It's just a matter of time before the other shoe falls,"
says Family Research Council president Tony Perkins. "This is not an
issue you can take a pass on." For politicians and activists, that may
be true. But average voters might do exactly that.
