Good riddance, FMA; rest in peace

We all know the story of today’s fiasco and how dumb the Santorum faction of the Republican Party looks right now. Oh, and President Bush, too. The collapse of the Federal Marriage Amendment is a huge victory for the Democrats, and for all of us.

I have to quote the best-read gay blogger on this:

All I can say is that, from one perspective, that of the gay community, president Bush has done what no Democratic candidate has been able to do for a couple of decades: he has united the entire community around the Democrats. The effort by many of us to persuade gay voters to consider the Republicans, to give Bush a chance, has been rendered almost comically moot this fall. Bush won a quarter of gay votes in 2000. I wonder if he’ll even get a tenth of them this year. He deserves fewer.

It was Sullivan who used the small “p” in “president Bush,” and I’m betting it was intentional. How can we hold any respect for a leader who, in a time of war and crisis, divides and distracts the entire nation over the most cynical legislation introduced in our lifetime?

For anyone who wants to praise bush for his judgement, his leadership, his compassion or his sincerity, I urge you to remember this moment. Remember how he tried to scribble discriminatory grafitti into the Constitution of the United States in a shameless effort to woo right-wing Christian voters. Remeber the cynicism, the cruelty and the deviousness of the whole thing. Remember how it was timed to embarrass Kerry and Edwards. And remember how even bush’s own party rejected it.

Remember how the real leader, John McCain told Congress, “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 remember how scumbag Santorum, in the face of defeat, vowed to continue fighting: “Isn’t that the ultimate homeland security? To defend the sanctity of marriage?” In other words, gay marriage is to be compared to terrorism. May this whole fiasco come crashing down on Santorum’s head.

Remember that bush is singling out “values” as the key differentiator between him and Kerry. And remember that today we saw bush’s “values” in all their glory. In other words, he has no values and will do anything at all, even endorse the nation’s first and only discriminatory amendment to the Constitution, to get ahead in the election and retain his grasp on power. This is bush, a valueless shell of a man and a menace to us and to the world. Remember.

The Discussion: 11 Comments

Amen to that. I was extremely happy to read that the amendment failed to get through the Senate when I read the news this morning.

As a Christian, it saddens me to see that so much of the support for this amendment was taken from Christians. In my eyes, this amendment was a message to homosexuals that said “your lifestyle is wrong and detrimental to society, thus we cannot encourage you in it.” Such a message runs contrary to the true Christian message, as it will only cause anger and resentment and will definitely be detrimental in the spreading of the Christian gospel.

It amazes me that bush got chosen over McCain 4 years ago for the Republican ticket. Though I disagree with some of his ideas, McCain would have been much better for this country.

July 14, 2004 @ 2:09 pm | Comment

Too bad Santorum isn’t up for re-election until 2008.

July 14, 2004 @ 3:14 pm | Comment

I never could understand the whole brouhaha over gay marriage and the GOP. I always believed that Republicans stood for less government (except for abortions) and about improving the economy for the rich to get richer.

Simple economics. When gays do something (especially gay males), they do it over the top. If homosexuals could get married, think about the massive infusion of cash into: florists, jewelers, caterers, restaurants, liquor companies (a favorite supporter of the GOP), convention halls, banquet halls, Las Vegas … the list goes on and on for where the money would go for weddings.

Oh, if you Google Santorum’s name, you get the fun project from Dan Savage.

July 14, 2004 @ 5:25 pm | Comment

Forrest, amen to what you say. I can cry when I think about what kind of country America would be today if McCain had won. Not that he’s perfect; in fact, he’s way too conservative for me on some issues. But just thinking of what it would be like to have a real leader at the helm, and one who can actually talk… Oh well.

Jeremy, you’re a PR person and you should understand thoroughly what bush was doing with the FMA. He’s got to show the Moral Majority crowd he cares. The benefits you cite in regard to gay marriage are economic. For bush, this was about re-election, period. Embarrassing Kerry and Edwards was a big part of the strategy. Shit floats upstream, as they say.

July 14, 2004 @ 5:43 pm | Comment

If support for the FMA was a purely political ploy, it was a truly dumb one, since all it acheived was win a few kudos from the Religious Right, who were already in Bush’s corner (no big gain), and alienated the gay voters as well as social liberals. Dumb.

July 14, 2004 @ 11:24 pm | Comment

What else could it have possibly been but a political ploy? A discriminatory Constitutional amendment for a “problem” that threatens absolutely no one? Introduced in the thick of an election year and put forth for a vote two weeks before the Democratic convention? You and I both know that’s all it was, another of bush’s attempts to garner political support by any means possible, no matter how disgusting.

July 15, 2004 @ 11:23 am | Comment

I could not understand why this was pushed so hard when the GOP had to know it did not have the votes. Didn’t make sense until I heard the the reaction among Black church groups was intensely negative. Seems they absolutely hate the concept of same sex marriage. And which segment of the Black community is more likely to vote???? Exactly the segment most likely to be influcenced by sermons by these irate Black preachers.

So the Dems are firmly identified with an issue strongly opposed by a highly influential voter base. And don’t even suggest to the Black community that there is a comparison between the gay rights struggle and the Civil Rights Movement.

All in all, Bush may have pulled off a win-win scenario. He can go to his Right wing base and say “Hey, we tried to get this done but the liberal/gay lobby was too strong. We need your help to defeat them.” He positions the Dems in a way strongly opposed by one of their core support bases – and Kerry/Edwards don’t vote on the issue at all, so they look like wafflers running away from taking a stance on this moral issue.

Just conjecture – but what do you think?? It answers many questions.

July 15, 2004 @ 7:20 pm | Comment

The blacks are so firmly in the Democratic camp, there is no way this issue would push them all the way out to the Republicans — especially with prominent Republicans like McCain being flat-out against it. The black community is thinking economics before all else; gay marriage is irrelevant to most of their lives, and I have never, ever heard a major outcry (or any outcry at all) from the black church over this issue.

July 15, 2004 @ 7:31 pm | Comment

What else could it have possibly been but a political ploy?

Well, in a sense, all legislation is an effort to buy votes from one group or another, but I was thinking of the possibility that it’s a matter of deep personal belief, which is even scarier.

I disagree with Jim above, but he does have a potential point which probably deserves attention. If blacks don’t vote 85% Democrat, the dems lose! Still I doubt the FMA would have converted many.

July 15, 2004 @ 8:10 pm | Comment

That bit of conjecture was just a little off the top of the head brainstorming. I don’t see the Black community going over to the GOP. But, as Sam suggested, if they simply don’t support the Dems the Dems are going to have huge problems. The gay rights agenda is very solidly connected to the Dems – even tho there are many GOP who also support gay rights issues. This vote has just further cemented that connection even further.

I live in a small mid-west city so maybe it is not typical of the Black community as a whole. But local Black clergy have been outspoken against same sex marriage and gay rights in general. Have Jesse Jackson or Al Shaprton stated their positions? Haven’t heard anything from either of them. What about NAACP, Urban League, etc?? The migration of middle class Blacks away from the urban centers may see a GOP strategy aimed at eroding Black support for the Dems. Going to have to watch for what Bush says to the Urban League.

July 16, 2004 @ 1:26 pm | Comment

Jim: I don’t see the Black community going over to the GOP. But, as Sam suggested, if they simply don’t support the Dems the Dems are going to have huge problems.

That is one big “if.” Sort of like saying, if Evangelical Christians don’t support the Republicans…. The hatred of bush among black leaders with large followings, whether fair or not, is pretty universal. Far more important to the black community than gay marriage or abortion are jobs and money. If that weren’t the case, they’d have abandoned the Dems long ago. Clinton, who tried to clear the way for gays in the military was the black community’s absolute hero; his attitude toward gays never hurt him a bit. Meanwhile, Kerry is well on the record as being opposed to gay marriage and he didn’t vote on the measure this week. This will only be of interest to right-wing Christians who aren’t votiong for Kerry anyway.

July 16, 2004 @ 1:43 pm | Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.