Social conservatives obsessed with 'saving' marriage from the homosexual menace have been working overtime to try to get Republican congressional leadership to move on the issue. What has emerged is a possible new and improved version of the antigay Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA).
The story is told in 'Marriage Amendment Jitters: The social right tries to get it together' in the traditional conservative journal The National Review Nov. 24.
Ramesh Ponnuru recounted a series of arguments, meetings, and maneuvers that took place in October among those on the right. They are trying to deal with some of the objections raised to the version of the FMA that has been introduced in the House but not in the Senate.
The far right is not content with existing language that would limit marriage to only that between a man and a woman, and preclude states from deciding otherwise. They feel equally threatened by civil unions, domestic-partner benefits, and anything else that might be seen as legitimizing the homosexual lifestyle.
Their answer is to add a 'clarify sentence: 'Neither the federal government nor any state shall predicate benefits, privileges, rights, or immunities on the existence, recognition, or presumption of sexual conduct or relationships.'' That makes everything crystal clear, doesn't it?
Ponnuru explained the rationale: 'The amendment isn't against civil unions, they say, only against 'discriminatory' civil unions that are for gays only (or gays and unmarried straight couples only).'
'I think this means that the social right is now offering semi-marital benefits to anyone —gay or straight—so long as they're celibate in the relationship or pretend they're straight or act as if they're as intimate as most law partners,' wrote Andrew Sullivan on his blog.
'The far right's loathing of gay people has forced them to adopt the most radical of the left's proposals—the deconstruction of marriage altogether into a meaningless French-style array of benefits conditioned on celibacy! And that celibacy applies to straights as well as gays.'
The Republican leadership in both the White House and Congress has stated their support for the traditional view of marriage as between a man and a woman. But they have been much more hesitant to voice support for the FMA. Part of that stems from a principled reluctance to modify the Constitution, and the other part is sheer politics.
Opinion data gathered by long-time Republican pollster Richard Wirthlin, presented at meetings in October, and obtained by this reporter, shows that 41% of Americans strongly support the notion that marriage is between a man an a woman, while 16% somewhat support it. Those somewhat against (11%) and strongly against (29%) the notion add up to 40% of the electorate.
When the question is posed as to whether the Constitution should be amended to protect marriage, support falls to 50%, with 48% disagreeing. Wirthlin found 'gay marriage as an issue evokes low passion compared to drug and alcohol abuse and abortion.'
Amending the Constitution is not an easy process, it requires a two-thirds vote of both the House and Senate and it must be ratified by three-quarters of the states.