Just to address a few issues before heading out to lunch. Here’s one overlooked part of the president’s remarks yesterday on amending the Constitution: You’ll notice he did not say that any amendment should allow for civil unions. The words “civil union” have never passed his lips. His spokesman yesterday said that in Texas, Bush would never support civil unions for gay people. (And it’s important to recall that Bush himself suppported the criminalization of private gay sex while governor.) This is deliberate. If Bush came out for civil unions, Gary Bauer would be appalled. What Bush said is that the amendment should allow for “legal arrangements other than marriage.” I think what that could mean is any ad hoc legal arrangement two spouses can put together – arrangements that the religious right amendment would make unenforceable in court. Clever, no? Almost Clintonian. To respond to Jonah’s question about why I keep calling the FMA the religious right amendment: the reason is that it is their amendment. The people pushing hardest for this have been people like Gary Bauer, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Tony Perkins, Carolyn Musgrave. If they’re not the religious right, who is? Lastly, there’s some confusion in the blogosphere about Kerry’s position. Ramesh Ponnuru seems to think that Kerry has come out for the religious right amendment, if it were to contain explicit provisions for civil unions. But Ramesh is confusing (understandably in context) Kerry’s remarks about a state constitutional amendment in Massachusetts and the federal one. Kerry has said quite clearly that he will vote against the federal amendment. So will Edwards. I cannot see over a dozen Democrats voting against their nominee in the Senate in an election year. Hostility to gay relationships is not that intense an emotion any more – expect for old Klan members like Robert Byrd. But even Byrd might balk at amending the constitution over this.
KIRKPATRICK CORRECTS: It took a while but David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times has now corrected his previous assertion that the current version of the religious right amendment would not bar civil unions. At the very least, there is confusion about it. At best, it would invalidate Vermont’s civil unions and any civil unions law that emerged as a result of court prodding or action. At worst, it would gut – and some of its authors obviously intend it to gut – every civil protection now held by gay couples.
FROM A SOLDIER IN SPECIAL OPS: “Well … And so it now begins. My more liberal friends told me a day like this would come, and now I am forced to eat crow. Words cannot express the hurt and anger I feel for the man’s blatant constitutional and moral attack on a segment of our population. And for the still wobbly among us, make no mistake … this is an attack… I realized long ago I am (was) a Republican solely for foreign affairs. But that’s not good enough anymore. I’ve helped feed the Kurds in Northern Iraq, I’ve slept in the mud and rain to enforce peace treaties in eastern Europe, seated in 100 percent humidity in southeast Asia, and I dodged too many bullets and remote controlled bombs in and around Mosul to count. But I gladly did this (and will do it again) to protect the rights and liberties of ALL Americans, not just those of my family.
I voted for this man … despite what my family said, despite how many times I was smeared because I am African American and (was) a Republican, despite his joy in being an anti-intellectual … they warned me, they warned me and I didn’t listen … and now I am ashamed of myself. By all that I hold Holy it will never happen again!”
HOME NEWS: No, this blog is not going to become devoted to civil marriage issues for ever. But this is a burning question right now and I feel a real responsibility to address these questions, especially since I played a part for the last decade or two in pioneering this issue. I keep being told that people will stop reading the blog if I continue. Fine. There’s plenty else to read out there. And a blog doesn’t have to be as comprehensive as the NYT or even NRO. But as a purely factual matter, there’s not much evidence that people have stopped reading. Yesterday was the biggest traffic day in the history of this site: 110,000 visits. Our average weekly readership has increased every single week this year. People are interested in this important matter. And although I’m obviously invested in one side, I think it’s a good thing that a blog can provide in depth coverage in a way other outlets cannot.
The Dish 