An Alternative for Bush? Naaah.
This very interesting column at TechCentralStation writes about "ambivalent conservatives" who Just Really Don't Care Much about the gay marriage issue. In a nutshell (citing Virginia Postrel): if you're a young conservative in a major city, chances are good you have a gay acquaintance who's in a serious relationship, so your passion for defending "traditional" marriage won't be as strong.
It also suggests a (somewhat unlikely) alternative to my theory about why the President's been so cagey on the subject of gay marriage: on this subject he's genuinely an ambi-con.
The interesting question here is whether Bush would go for the "compromise" constitutional amendment Jonathan Rauch, a conservative supporter of gay marriage, advocates: writing the Defense of Marriage Act into the constitution as "Nothing in this Constitution requires any state or the federal government to recognize anything other than the union of one man and one woman as a marriage." Meaning that a state, either legislatively or judicially (based on the state's constitution alone), could enact gay marriage, but another state would not be forced to recognize it.
It's a very federalist solution, but it would make activists on both sides unhappy. And while young, hip urban conservatives may have gay friends and not really care about the issue, rural "heartland" conservatives prooooobably have a different perspective.
Comments
I don't think the federalist position on this will fly, constitutionally speaking. Sooner or later that will get challenged, and for the Supreme Court to rule that states need not recognize one another's marriages would be to overturn the full-faith-and-credit clause and the 14th Amendment. I think stealing a presidency would be nothing next to the can of worms such a ruling would open.
Posted by: Lex | February 21, 2004 9:29 AM
Okay, I'll not post this in my blog like I want to because I've found out that my mom, sister, and several family friends read my blog. I don't feel like be shunned by them because I no longer hold the same religious views as they do. It was bad enough I posted about politics the other day, we'll see what happens next time I talk to my mom...
Anyway, Gay Marriage. I have two really good gay friends. One is in a very serious relationship, they jointly own everything, house in Key West, house in Tampa, house in Delaware, etc. My other gay friend is in a pretty serious relationship. They've moved a couple times around the country together and my friend is planning on paying for his boyfriend's school and the like.
All of my gay friends are very good people. I really can't imagine any of them being subversive in any way shape or form. I really don't care if they, or ANY gay couple is married. I don't see the big deal. They have chosen their lifestyle, let them live it.
If you read my post on politics though, you know I think it is the STUPIDIST thing ever for the government to be involved in social issues. What a politician believes socially in NO WAY effects what I think of that politician. Those are the IMPORTANT things that folks should be voting on. If a voter convinces themselves that these "silly" silly issues are how they are going to vote, welp, wasted votes in my opinion.
There are MORE IMPORTANT things on the agenda for the government. My protection is paramount. The economy right behind it. Then Crime (not Education) should be up there. All of the "weeds" that folks get tied up in are just that to distract from the important issues. Oh well.
Posted by: Jay | February 21, 2004 11:11 AM
From what I can remember(and I'm no historian), I don't believe the U.S. government has never been successful in social prohibitions(alcohol & other drugs, segregation, etc.). I do not imagine a ban on gay marriages(even in the event that it's passed) would last for long on the books.
I'm personally for gov't recognition of gay unions. Tax gay unions just like heterosexual unions.
Posted by: Jeffrey | February 23, 2004 1:17 AM
Call the whole bit where you go to the courthouse to get a license, no matter your gender, a "civil union," and leave "marriage" as a religious ceremony.
Posted by: Laura | February 23, 2004 9:50 PM