Proposal Number Three: "Marriage is a Union"

The New York Times is on the death watch in regards to the proposed constitutional amendment on marriage. As written, the measure will fortunately go down in flames--probably not even gathering enough votes to constitute a simple majority. Hence, the 11th hour attempt by the Republicans to rework the language in a desperate attempt to garner a few more "ayes." Senators, however, aren't quite as dumb as the Bushistas would like them to be, and can easily come up with justifications for a "no" vote that will fly with the consitituents back home.

There is ONE element to the debate which intrigued me, though. I took a little bit of time yesterday to watch C-Span's coverage of the interest groups supporting the measure. Prominently featured in the press conference were a several African American religious leaders, all eloquently pressing their case. I disagree with them on this issue, but I wonder if this isn't a cynical attempt by Rove to not so much appeal to people of color--after all, Bush snubbed the NAACP--but to at least try to drive a wedge between African Americans and Democrats. In other words, consider it a counter to the conservative folks who, for whatever reason, won't vote for Kerry, but can no longer abide Bush, and therefore will be staying at home come November.

Will it work? I don't think so--African Americans are intelligent voters who will cast ballots based on any number of issues for any number of reasons.

I think that most will see through this red herring of an issue, even if last spring John Edwards adopted what I can only describe as a shit-eating grin while he invoked the doctrine of states' rights when it comes to marriage legislation. At the same time, those of us on the left should be aware of such cynical manuevers, and be ready to aggressively counter with our own arguments when they arise. For example, Barbara Ehrenreich (have I mentioned how much I admire her work? Well, have I mentioned it today?), notes that Bush's zeal to prevent gay marriage is matched only by his eagerness in pushing the poor to the altar. Of course, as she writes, maybe Bush could urge corporate CEO's to marry receipents of TANF funds, but that usually doesn't happen. Instead, poor people who get married tend to marry other poor people. And, guess what? Two incomes alone don't necessarily get a family OUT of poverty these days.

And there's the problem--not whether, if the Straight Eye stereotypes do have a basis in reality, whether or not two male interior decorators tie the knot and aggressively promote the anti-American agenda of insuring the bathroom towels are coordinated with the wallpaper. Amendments to the Constitution should be carefully considered, and this is one that we have no need for. It's pure politics, and an indication of how venal Team Bush really is: they'd happily take a shit on the Constitution in public if they thought it would help their cause.