New York Times Editorial - An election-year stunt
New York Times Editorial - An election-year stunt
The New York Times
Published: June 8, 2006
Now that the Republican leaders in the Senate have finished wasting Americans' time over a constitutional ban on gay marriage, we're bracing for Act Two of the culture-war circus that the White House is staging to get out the right-wing vote this autumn.
Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, plans to continue to set aside work on pressing issues facing the United States to vote on yet another unworthy constitutional amendment - a prohibition on burning the American flag.
If the gay marriage amendment was a pathetic attempt to change the subject in an election year, the flag- burning proposal is simply ridiculous. At least there actually is a national debate about marriage, and many thousands of gay couples want to wed. Flag burning is an issue that exists only for the purpose of pandering to a tiny slice of voters. Supporters of the amendment cannot point to a single instance of anti-American flag burning in the last 30 years. The video images that the American Legion finds so offensive to veterans and other Americans are either of Vietnam- era vintage or from other countries.
Nevertheless, flag burning remains one of those "wedge issues" that Republicans use to denigrate the patriotism of Democratic candidates or to get the party's base out to vote.
The other big difference between the two amendments is that the ban on gay marriage was never going to get the two-thirds vote in Congress required to send it to the states for ratification. On Wednesday, the Senate rejected it by 49 to 48, with the help of seven Republicans.
The flag-burning amendment, on the other hand, actually could pass. A realistic nose count based on members' public statements and how they voted when the measure last came up, in 2000, suggests the Senate may be just a single vote short of punching a hole in free speech.
Senator Harry Reid, the minority leader, should be rallying Democrats to join the small handful of principled Republicans so far willing to oppose the amendment. But as things stand, he is among the Democrats who plan to vote for this constitutional vandalism. Opponents of the amendment, like Senator Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, are standing on firm ground in trying to protect the Bill of Rights from an election-year stunt. It is the patriotic thing to do.
The New York Times
Published: June 8, 2006
Now that the Republican leaders in the Senate have finished wasting Americans' time over a constitutional ban on gay marriage, we're bracing for Act Two of the culture-war circus that the White House is staging to get out the right-wing vote this autumn.
Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, plans to continue to set aside work on pressing issues facing the United States to vote on yet another unworthy constitutional amendment - a prohibition on burning the American flag.
If the gay marriage amendment was a pathetic attempt to change the subject in an election year, the flag- burning proposal is simply ridiculous. At least there actually is a national debate about marriage, and many thousands of gay couples want to wed. Flag burning is an issue that exists only for the purpose of pandering to a tiny slice of voters. Supporters of the amendment cannot point to a single instance of anti-American flag burning in the last 30 years. The video images that the American Legion finds so offensive to veterans and other Americans are either of Vietnam- era vintage or from other countries.
Nevertheless, flag burning remains one of those "wedge issues" that Republicans use to denigrate the patriotism of Democratic candidates or to get the party's base out to vote.
The other big difference between the two amendments is that the ban on gay marriage was never going to get the two-thirds vote in Congress required to send it to the states for ratification. On Wednesday, the Senate rejected it by 49 to 48, with the help of seven Republicans.
The flag-burning amendment, on the other hand, actually could pass. A realistic nose count based on members' public statements and how they voted when the measure last came up, in 2000, suggests the Senate may be just a single vote short of punching a hole in free speech.
Senator Harry Reid, the minority leader, should be rallying Democrats to join the small handful of principled Republicans so far willing to oppose the amendment. But as things stand, he is among the Democrats who plan to vote for this constitutional vandalism. Opponents of the amendment, like Senator Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, are standing on firm ground in trying to protect the Bill of Rights from an election-year stunt. It is the patriotic thing to do.
posted by Carlos T Mock at 7:32 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home