If this claim is true, Bush’s “flypaper” strategy in Iraq could be working.
FRC AND FMA: A reader remembers a piece he once read by FRC’s outgoing head, Kenneth Connor, opposing the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment:
I spent about an hour unsuccessfully attempting to find it on the FRC website. Apparently, it doesn’t exist there anymore. I did a web search and located the old link. Here is the teaser from the web search. Revisionist history at FRC?: “Family Research Council: Insight: Why the Family Research Council Cannot Endorse the Proposed ‘Federal Marriage Amendment.’ ‘We respect the concern for federalism that underlies the language of the Federal Marriage Amendment; nevertheless, we believe that the institution of marriage, like the protections enumerated in the B…’
Fascinating. Herewith an open request to FRC (or anyone else out there) to give me a link to the piece so we can see if or why Kenneth Connor once opposed the FMA; and whether that had any impact on his departure from FRC. Meanwhile, another member of the far right takes exception to the FMA. Concerned Women for America’s Jan La Rue opposes the FMA “because it would not prevent state legislatures from recognizing and benefiting civil unions and other such relationships, which would result in legalized counterfeit marriage.” I think she’s wrong. But it shows the extent of the opposition to gay relationships of any sort that animates the far right. What both quotes reveal is how even in the cloistered world of the far right, the FMA has opponents. What chance then of writing it into the very Constitution itself?
The Dish 