June 5, 2006, More priorities (or f*** them, because bashing them gets the rubes out to vote for me)
And so, with OBL (who?) still out there now four years and nine months after 9-11, with the war in Iraq generating over two thousand dead American service personnel, tens of thousands wounded, untold thousands of dead Iraqis, and hundreds of billions in costs of the war, with the federal deficit at record levels and only poised to get worse (as Congress debates eliminating the "Paris Hilton" tax, a/k/a the fairest, most efficient tax on the books, i.e., the estate tax), with National Guard troops being rushed to our Southern border, with terrorists apparently operating just north of our Northern border... the most burning national issue available as far as the President and Senate are concerned is, of course, amending the Constitution to prevent same-sex marriage.
This stuff writes itself. Yes, New York's Court of Appeals has a case before it on this issue, entirely a matter of state law (absent this proposed federal constitutional amendment which, of course, is going nowhere) which might make the Empire State join Massachusetts as the only two states to legalize same sex marriage (California's courts are also wrestling with this, but not quite the highest court yet, I don't believe.) Massachusetts has single sex marriage, of course, and a Republican governor, and life seems to have gone on there, without the Apocalypse, or frankly, much change in life in general. Funny, that. (Few understand that the issue is a matter of simple fairness and the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution: numerous governmental goodies and rights are tied to marriage, and courts are now finding that the prevention of members of a committed couple from obtaining these goodies and rights solely on the basis of gender violates this provision.)
The traditional Republican base (i.e. before Ronald Reagan perfected Nixon's "Southern Strategy") of "small government conservatives," if any of its members still existed (or dared show themselves) would doubtless be outraged at this needless intrusion into the private lives of Americans by an aggressively intrusive big federal government. Ah, but the religious right base of big-government social conservatives couldn't be happier... as usual, they fail to realize that they are being played for fools, because yet again, all they are getting is lip service on their pet social issues, while their individual members, generally not members of the super-rich, are being f***ed economically, and yet play on just so they can get lip-service to their pet social causes... An amazingly destructive deal for all but the super-rich and the ruling class, all things told, but then, no one ever went broke (or got thrown out of office, apparently) by underdestimating the intelligence of the American people... (naturally, too stupid to realize that Rush Limbaugh personally benefits from tax cuts to himself at the expense of higher state and local taxes and reduced services to the rubes and zombies that listen to him.)
Thing is, though, the wedge act seems to be wearing a bit thin. The Presidential approval rating is now in the 20's, with no particular reason absent something both unforeseen and extraordinary, to improve much. And it is the President's party fighting to hold onto its majority (which it probably will; see above.) But frankly, if the best that Grand Old Party can do is trot out last election's pet social wedge issues... well, you really start to wonder if maybe they've run out steam... Indeed, this shtick is so old and so stupid, that even "the base" might see through it for the transparent load of useless bunk that it is.
That's not how you bet, of course.
Comments
Equal protection? Any man can marry any woman, and vice versa. How is that a denial of equal protection? Too vague an interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause to be meaningful, and as appled, will cause many problems.
Posted by Just Wondering at June 5, 2006 11:29 PM
JW--
When the government decided to tie benefits to marriage (the big one is social security survival pension, others include various inheritance rights, medical insurance rights and so forth), it created the equal protection problem. Most of those benefits CANNOT be provided by private contract... so we define one set of monogamous relatinoships as eligible for those bennies, and one set not. NO RATIONAL BASIS FOR THAT DISTINCTION when made solely on gender.
Its not about marriage: its about the government benefits.
That's the basis of the state court decisions under state constitutions.
Posted by the talking dog at June 6, 2006 7:50 AM
there wont be any future elections we need to worry about thanks to diebold
Posted by marblex at June 6, 2006 11:33 AM
TD, nonsense. The rational basis is to foster relationships that bear children. And please, don't argue adoption or sperm donors.
Posted by Just Wondering at June 6, 2006 11:11 PM
No rational basis when you fast forward to 70 year olds, 80 year olds, 90 year olds... we let heteros at those age levels get married, but not same-sex... no rational tie-iin to child rearing, and let's face it: a huge portion of children in this country are raised outside of marriage as it is. Sorry. Not the answer.
My point remains: life has gone on in Massachusetts unabated, just as it has gone on in Europe and Canada. Marriage is not a zero-sum commodity; extending it to other people doesn't devalue yours or mine.
Bush is pandering to the base. Maybe he's earned your vote with this (I somehow doubt that), but he's not actually accomplishing anything...
The REAL family values: eliminating that awful estate tax!!
Posted by the talking dog at June 7, 2006 8:22 AM
TD, there you go again. Arguing the old people exception to defeat the general proposition. Yes, life goes on in Massachusetts, Europe and Canada, and, the value of marriage diminishes. Under your rationale, polygamy is ok too.
As to the rest of your comments (Bush, estate tax), I agree with you.
Posted by Just Wondering at June 7, 2006 10:49 AM
Gee TD and JW:
That's an awful lot of sexually frustrated banter between you boys. Why don't you just get together for a mocha latte, sniff each other's ass and rent the DVD for Brokeback Mountain, already? I tune in to this website for hard (eewwwww) hitting interviews, and never ending left wing epithets, not for hissy fits. Get a room, girls.
Posted by Rock R. E. Hudpeck at June 7, 2006 4:29 PM