... Well, this ought to be entertaining, at the least. And who knows, maybe a little illuminating. Although one doesn't expect illumination from Congress, these days.
Republicans to force issue of gay 'marriage' - The Washington Times: Nation/Politics: Senate Republicans plan to use a hearing this week to force Democrats to take firm positions on same-sex "marriages," a prospect that could prove particularly dicey for some presidential candidates. Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, scheduled a hearing tomorrow on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to find out if it has been threatened by recent court rulings. "I believe we must do whatever it takes to safeguard the institution of marriage and ensure that the principles defined in DOMA remain the law of the land," said Mr. Cornyn, chairman of the panel's subcommittee on the Constitution, civil rights and property rights. "This hearing will remind people why traditional marriage is so important for a healthy society, and will determine the extent of the threat posed to DOMA by judicial activism in light of recent court decisions and pending cases."
THIS man is head of a subcommittee on civil rights? Yeesh.
Republicans worry that even the U.S. Supreme Court — dominated by GOP nominees — might undo DOMA. "There's a very real potential threat that they could overturn DOMA," Mr. Stewart said.
Well, assuming that they rule on established constitutional principles -- there are, after all, very few exceptions to the Full Faith and Credit clause -- they'd be almost required to overturn DOMA laws, should such appeals ever reach them. I don't think it will come up, somehow. I think that as soon as a state -- any state -- rules that gays are allowed to marry, or that such marriages contracted abroad must be recognized, the Republicans will ram through an amendment to the Constitution, and the Democrats, being the craven cowards that they are, will vote for it. And then it will pass to the states, where it will be added to state constitutions in a 50-0 sweep through the land. (OK, possibly 48-2, since California is odd, and Massachusetts seems to be leaning the other way. Although, that said, the prediction is that if the Massachusetts Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage, an amendment to the state constitution will be on the way almost immediately [second part of the article].)
Frankly, I don't think most people in this country would have the least problem in encoding into our country's law the proposition: We HATE You. After all, if the pendulum can swing from a 60% majority saying, "Hey, why not let gays have sex in the privacy of their own homes to a 48% plurality saying, "Oh, now we just don't think that's right" when it suddenly IS legal to have sex in the privacy of our own homes, how on earth are they likely to react to the possibility of actual marriage? Unfortunately, civil marriage has become inextricably linked with religious marriage in this country, both in peoples' minds and in actual fact, and unwinding civil from religious principles on this matter may no longer be possible.
Posted by iain at September 03, 2003 11:36 AMComments
