Quote:
Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
When, in preparing for the debates, the press finally realizes that the actual wording of the House bill would not only prevent states from permitting gay marriage, but also creating civil unions that bear all or perhaps even any of the hallmarks of marriage, Kerry and Edwards will do the right thing and say they oppose the amendment, period, because they only want to preserve the word "marriage" for oppo-sex couples but have nothing against states creating unions.
|
I caught a little of Chris Matthews yesterday and he was grilling some Kerry and Edwards spokesmen on whether the Dems' states rights sound bite on gay marriage was a dodge. His point was that if the candidates were truly for states' rights on this issue they should also say that they would be willing to go to court to help a state who wants to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman to avoid having to recognize same sex marriages from other states (which of course they wouldn't). I think he made something of a good point, although his shouting down of the spokesmen once they started annoying him with their semi-answers kind of smothered the discussion even before it got started.
So it may behoove the Dems to start defining themselves in opposition to the amendment, as you describe, rather than getting too far into the states' rights theorizing. Although frankly I would think that the voters that this issue is primarily going to affect are the people who are just looking for the basic "pro-gay" or "anti-gay" boxes to check (or, to simplify it further, a picture of a smiling Ellen DeGeneres with a check mark next to it on one side of the ballot and a picture of a frowning Ellen DeGeneres with a slash through it on the other side). In other words, I would think that the nuances of the legal principles to be evaluated in weighing the need for a constitutional amendment are somewhat lost on many members of each party's base.
Do you think that the "right" thing for the candidate(s) to do is to proclaim that they are preserving the word marriage for oppo-sex couples? I personally would prefer they remain silent on that, because I think it would hurt them more than it would help them with the true believers in this polarized election year. This may be related to the fact that I'm one of the few people that thinks SF has a decent legal argument that will allow for recognition of its same sex marriages, so I am aware that this may not be the most dispassionate advice...
