The sweet ironies of the FMA denouement

The embarrassing collapse of efforts to ram a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage through the Senate this week provided a sorely needed reason for optimism about the health of American democracy. "The fight has just begun," says the Family Research Council. But they come across sounding a little bit silly when not even a simple majority of Senators voted to force the thing to a vote.

It was widely reported in recent weeks that the whole point of the Republicans' efforts to get a floor vote on the amendment was to force John Kerry and John Edwards to cast a vote for same-sex marriage that they could run with in the fall campaign. On one level, one (meaning: I) would have liked Kerry and Edwards to express such intense outrage at the Republicans' exploitation of a vulnerable minority that they would insist on returning to Washington to vote against the procedural "cloture" vote. On another level, though, one must admit in retrospect that there is something satisfying about the fact that the Republicans didn't even get the one prize they thought was a sure thing: getting John Kerry to cast a vote "against" traditional marraige on the Senate floor. And he was right, too, to draw a clear distinction between the relative importance of Republican procedural shenanigans, and a vote over amending the Constitution. The Democrats called the Republicans' bluff by being willing to bring the amendment to a vote; all that was left for the Republicans, then, was to squirm and shriek as they tried, in all seriousness, to turn the Constitution into what is often called an election-year football.

HRC lauded John McCain's "ironclad opposition" to the amendment, which was indeed very welcome. In the spirit of public information, I offer several snippets from the Congressional Record:

Senator McCain (R-AZ): "The constitutional amendment we are debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans. It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed, and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states do not believe confronts them, and which they feel capable of resolving should it confront them, again according to local standards and customs." McCain cited James Madison's concept of federalism as his main reason for opposing the amendment.

Senator Jeffords (I-VT): "Having witnessed Vermont's approach, I beg to differ with anyone in this body who argues that States are not able to decide this issue for themselves. Here in the Senate we should be spending our time debating legislation that is inclusive, not exclusive."

Senator Kennedy (D-MA): "President Bush will go down in history as the first President to try to write bigotry back into the Constitution. No one can now claim with a straight face that he has lived up to the campaign promise to be a uniter and not a divider. The manner in which this amendment has been brought up to the Senate floor is disgraceful....In 1783, the issue of slavery came before the Massachusetts Supreme Court, and Massachusetts has the only constitution of all 50 States that has been interpreted as barring slavery. We were the first State of all the States to ban slavery, the only State that banned it in the constitution itself, Massachusetts, under John Adams, the only State, in 1783. And we had slaves in my State for 150 years before it. So it is nice to hear our colleagues talk about Massachusetts and about our court and our judges there. I remind our colleagues, of the seven Massachusetts judges who voted, six were and are Republicans. Only one is a Democrat....I happen to be someone who supports the court decision in Massachusetts. I am proud of them....The true threat to religious freedom is posed by the Federal marriage amendment itself, which would tell churches they cannot consecrate a same-sex marriage, even though some churches are now doing so. The amendment would flagrantly interfere with the decisions of religious communities and undermine the longstanding separation of church and state in our society....More and more children across the country today have same-sex parents. What does it do to these children and their well-being when the President of the United States and the Senate Republican leadership say their parents are second-class citizens?"

Senator Clinton (D-NY): "As Henry Clay once observed: 'The Constitution of the United States was made not merely for the generation that then existed, but for posterity---unlimited, undefined, endless, perpetual posterity.'...I have had occasion in my life to defend marriage, to stand up for marriage, to believe in the hard work and challenge of marriage. So I take umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage....Now, if we were really concerned about marriage and the fact that so many marriages today end in divorce, ...perhaps 20, 30 years ago we should have been debating an amendment to the Federal Constitution to make divorce really, really hard, to take it out of the States' hands and say that we will not liberalize divorce, we will not move toward no-fault divorce We should not amend the Constitution to federalize an issue I believe marriage should be protected....I believe marriage is essential, but I do not, for the life of me, understand how amending the Constitution of the United States with respect to same-gender marriages really gets at the root of the problem of marriage in America."

Senator Dayton (MN): "...in the entire New Testament, there is only one reference to same-sex relationships, in Chatper Two of Paul's Letter to the Romans. Jesus Christ does not mention them even once in any of the four Gospels. Instead, His overriding instruction was to love they neighbor as thyself. That was his second great commandment, which superseded all the rest. Jesus also warned several times to beware of false prophets. How could they be identified? He said that they spread hate, instead of love....Thousands of Americans have been fired from their jobs, evicted from their homes, harassed, threatened, assaulted, even murdered, because of their sexual orientations. Some other Americans have spread that hatred and caused that harm, while professing their own religious piety and moral superiority....This political ploy is not about 'saving marriage'; it is about saving politicians' jobs. Thank goodness we have Senator so-and-so, they will say back home, to save us from the heathen hordes. Thank goodness we have the President for saving us, too. We may not have jobs or health care. We cannot afford prescription drugs or gasoline. They are bankrupting the Federal Government with deficits, they are destroying our credibility throughout the world, they made a mess of Iraq, they cannot find weapons of mass destruction or Osama bin Laden or whoever shut down Congress with anthrax or ricin, but they are defending marriage---again and again and again. Let's reelect them. It is a tragic day in America when politicians exploit the Constitution of the United States to get themselves reelected. It is a tragic day for millions of Americans who are being exploited by these politicians. This is a hurtful, hateful, harmful debate for America....If marriage belongs to God, as I believe it does, then our separation of church and state government should not interfere with its administration by the properly chosen religious authorities. Instead, government should adopt a different term to use for the legal rights and responsibilities under a civil contract, which I believe any two adults should equally be able to enter into. Giving marriage back to the churches, synagogues, and mosques and separating it from government is marriage's salvation and society's solution. Let us direct our efforts to protecting America from al-Qaida. Leave the Constitution alone and leave marriage to God. I yield the floor."

Now compare, by contrast, the preparation and sophistication shown in the remarks of Senator Santorum (R-PA), which he has proudly linked from his website: "It is politically correct to say there is not a difference, but the fact is that fathers and mothers contribute different things to children....By the way, this is a remarkably similar strategy to that which was used in the 1950s and 1960s with respect to the issue of abortion. What happened in that case was a little different. Instead of the courts imposing abortion on the States---although that may have been done; I am just not aware of, maybe as well as I should be, the history---but I do know certain legislatures throughout the country began changing the statutes with respect to abortion....We debate a lot of important issues here, but there is nothing---nothing---more important than the future survival of this country. That is what we are here for. "