|
GAY-MARRIAGE AMENDMENT IS NOTHING
MORE THAN POLITICAL PLOY
By Cynthia Tucker, news.yahoo.com
from the Web, May 30, 2006
In 1964, just one congressman from
the Deep South -- Charles Weltner -- voted for the Civil Rights Act. For
all practical purposes, his righteous leadership on civil rights -- he also
supported the Voting Rights Act -- cost him his congressional career. He
quit the race for re-election in 1966 rather than sign an act of loyalty to the
segregationist Lester Maddox, as Georgia Democrats insisted. But some
analysts believe he would have lost anyway.
Doing the right thing is difficult because it often means losing. And the
typical politician is willing to lose anything -- honor, integrity, dignity --
but an election.
That helps explain why, during this election season, so few politicians have
stepped forward to denounce initiatives against gay marriage as the cynical and
opportunistic tactics that they are. They know that playing on prejudice
and fear can rally a certain constituency and provide the winning margin in
tight races.
It certainly worked two years ago. Republican tacticians maneuvered to add
amendments against gay marriage to the ballots in 11 states, including Georgia.
The result was to lure religious conservatives to the polls in large numbers,
probably giving President Bush the boost he needed in the battleground state of
Ohio.
This year, conservative Republicans -- struggling against voter discontent over
Iraq, health care and high gas prices, among other things -- are desperate to
bring those religious conservatives back to the polls. So they've
resurrected the same tired tactic. Next month, the Senate is expected to
vote on an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning same-sex marriage.
Senate leaders haven't made much of an effort to disguise the initiative as
anything other than the base political ploy that it is. After a frenzy of
gay-bashing during the 2004 campaign season -- they thundered against gay
marriage as a threat to every family tradition, from man-woman marriages to
peanut butter-and-jelly sandwiches -- Republican leaders hadn't even mentioned
the issue again. The threat disappeared for two years. Until now --
when they're facing the prospect of losing control of Congress.
Given the stakes, prominent Republicans won't get in the way of a good wedge
issue. Oh, first lady Laura Bush has pointed out the unfairness of a
constitutional amendment. So has Mary Cheney, the vice president's gay
daughter, who lives openly with her partner of 14 years, Heather Poe, and has
recently published her memoirs. Earlier this month, Cheney told CNN that
"writing discrimination into the Constitution of the United States is
fundamentally wrong."
But it's unlikely you'll hear the vice president arguing against theamendment so
pointedly on the campaign trail. While he has said in the pastthat he
opposes it, he'd rather remind his right-wing supporters of hisstaunch support
for the invasion of Iraq. President Bush, for his part, has spent his
remaining pennies of political capital trying to pass a humane policy on
immigration. He may not fight for an amendment banning gay marriage, but
he's unlikely to get in the way of it, either.
In Georgia, meanwhile, even progressive politicians have been cowed by the
state's overwhelming consensus against gay marriage. Though 76 percent of
Georgia voters approved the ban two years ago, a Superior Court judge recently
struck down the amendment on technical grounds. After the ruling, Gov.
Sonny Perdue, a Republican, quickly announced plans for a special session of the
legislature to rewrite the ban and place it before voters again in November.
His two Democratic opponents, Lt. Gov. Mark Taylor and Secretary of State Cathy
Cox, rushed to support the move.
Cox's awkward leap onto the bandwagon was especially disappointing, since she
pointed out two years ago that the amendment is "unnecessary." Georgia
law, like federal law, already bans same-sex unions. But many analysts
have pointed out that Cox is desperate to draw black voters away from Taylor in
the Democratic primary for governor; black Georgians, like their white
neighbors, gave their unabashed support to enshrining bigotry in the state
Constitution.
Cox, like most other politicians, would rather pander to the prejudices of
voters than stand by her principles. It's a perfectly human inclination --
doing the safe thing, rather than the right thing.
There are never more than a handful like Weltner, who preferred losing a
campaign to sacrificing his conscience. In his resignation speech, he
declared, "I love the Congress, but I will give up my office before I give up my
principles. ... I cannot compromise with hate." His courage is as rare now
as it was then.
(Cynthia Tucker is editorial page editor for The Atlanta
Journal-Constitution. She can be reached by e-mail:
cynthia@ajc.com.)
|
