Chicago Tribune Editorial - The Senate's skewed priorities
Chicago Tribune Editorial - The Senate's skewed priorities
Published May 18, 2006
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
On the Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution, which would outlaw same-sex unions, the Republican Party is a house divided.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee intends to bring the measure to the Senate floor for a vote in June. But President Bush, who endorsed the idea two years ago, has been lying low, and his wife recently said, "I don't think it should be used as a campaign tool, obviously."
Vice President Dick Cheney indicated in 2004 he didn't much like the idea, and daughter Mary, a lesbian who worked for her father's campaign, calls it "fundamentally wrong." Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is on record in opposition, and Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) views it as a needless intrusion into "a state issue."
Despite the intraparty dissent, the Senate Judiciary Committee is pressing ahead with a vote Thursday.
The proposed amendment is expected to win approval and make its way to the full Senate--though it has virtually no chance of passage there. Constitutional amendments require two-thirds approval, and in a 2004 procedural vote, it couldn't muster even a majority of senators. Obviously some Republican senators think that if the measure can't be passed, at least it can serve as a campaign tool.
But the GOP dissenters have the best of the argument. McCain was right when he said the marriage amendment is "antithetical in every way to the core policy 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."
The Supreme Court of Massachusetts ruled in 2003 that gay marriage could not be prohibited there under the state's constitution, prompting a furious national debate and talk of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The case for federal action, though, has only weakened since then. Officials in San Francisco and several other cities took it on themselves to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, in defiance of state laws. But the courts soon put a stop to that. Massachusetts, which remains the only state that allows such marriages, has refused to grant marriage licenses to out-of-state couples. That has greatly limited the feared impact of the state court's decision.
In the states, critics of gay marriage are winning the battle. Eighteen states have adopted constitutional bans (though Georgia's was invalidated by a judge Wednesday on technical grounds), and others are considering them. Frist says the federal amendment is needed to protect against "activist judges," but verdicts in state courts can be averted or overridden by amendments to state constitutions.
The federal Defense of Marriage Act, meanwhile, stipulates that states are not obliged to recognize same-sex weddings transacted in other states. Activist federal judges pose no threat, since it's inconceivable that the current Supreme Court would find a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry.
The campaign for government recognition of gay marriage will be won or lost in the various states. The proposal in the Senate committee answers no obvious need, much less one grave enough to justify amending the Constitution. Republicans and Democrats should join in opposing it.
Published May 18, 2006
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
On the Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution, which would outlaw same-sex unions, the Republican Party is a house divided.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee intends to bring the measure to the Senate floor for a vote in June. But President Bush, who endorsed the idea two years ago, has been lying low, and his wife recently said, "I don't think it should be used as a campaign tool, obviously."
Vice President Dick Cheney indicated in 2004 he didn't much like the idea, and daughter Mary, a lesbian who worked for her father's campaign, calls it "fundamentally wrong." Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is on record in opposition, and Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) views it as a needless intrusion into "a state issue."
Despite the intraparty dissent, the Senate Judiciary Committee is pressing ahead with a vote Thursday.
The proposed amendment is expected to win approval and make its way to the full Senate--though it has virtually no chance of passage there. Constitutional amendments require two-thirds approval, and in a 2004 procedural vote, it couldn't muster even a majority of senators. Obviously some Republican senators think that if the measure can't be passed, at least it can serve as a campaign tool.
But the GOP dissenters have the best of the argument. McCain was right when he said the marriage amendment is "antithetical in every way to the core policy 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."
The Supreme Court of Massachusetts ruled in 2003 that gay marriage could not be prohibited there under the state's constitution, prompting a furious national debate and talk of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The case for federal action, though, has only weakened since then. Officials in San Francisco and several other cities took it on themselves to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, in defiance of state laws. But the courts soon put a stop to that. Massachusetts, which remains the only state that allows such marriages, has refused to grant marriage licenses to out-of-state couples. That has greatly limited the feared impact of the state court's decision.
In the states, critics of gay marriage are winning the battle. Eighteen states have adopted constitutional bans (though Georgia's was invalidated by a judge Wednesday on technical grounds), and others are considering them. Frist says the federal amendment is needed to protect against "activist judges," but verdicts in state courts can be averted or overridden by amendments to state constitutions.
The federal Defense of Marriage Act, meanwhile, stipulates that states are not obliged to recognize same-sex weddings transacted in other states. Activist federal judges pose no threat, since it's inconceivable that the current Supreme Court would find a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry.
The campaign for government recognition of gay marriage will be won or lost in the various states. The proposal in the Senate committee answers no obvious need, much less one grave enough to justify amending the Constitution. Republicans and Democrats should join in opposing it.
posted by Carlos T Mock at 10:55 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home