You Want Defense of Marriage? We'll Give You Defense of Marriage

My native state can beat up your native state. Consider the "Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance", who offer a modest proposal that would test whether citizens of the Evergreen State really agree with the logic of anti-marriage equality crowd:

The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance seeks to defend equal marriage in this state by challenging the Washington Supreme Court’s ruling on Andersen v. King County. This decision, given in July 2006, declared that a “legitimate state interest” allows the Legislature to limit marriage to those couples able to have and raise children together. Because of this “legitimate state interest,” it is permissible to bar same-sex couples from legal marriage.

The way we are challenging Andersen is unusual: using the initiative, we are working to put the Court’s ruling into law. We will do this through three initiatives. The first would make procreation a requirement for legal marriage. The second would prohibit divorce or legal separation when there are children. The third would make the act of having a child together the legal equivalent of a marriage ceremony.

WDoMA is currently collecting signatures to put on the ballot Initiative 957, which would do the following:

• add the phrase, “who are capable of having children with one another” to the legal definition of marriage;


• require that couples married in Washington file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage automatically annulled;


• require that couples married out of state file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage classed as “unrecognized;”


• establish a process for filing proof of procreation; and
  make it a criminal act for people in an unrecognized marriage to receive marriage benefits.

Will I-957 make the ballot? It looks unlikely. But silly as it sounds, the WDoMA folks are deadly serious about civil rights - and about making the anti-gay lobby squirm:

By getting the initiatives passed, we hope the Supreme Court will strike them down as unconstitutional and thus weaken Andersen itself. And at the very least, it should be good fun to see the social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation be forced to choke on their own rhetoric.

I'd like to see that! Why not give them a hand?

(Cross-posted at The Daily Gotham)

Labels: gay marriage, I-957, Washington State, Washington State Defense of Marriage Alliance

  ¶ Posted by Paul Curtis 5:13 PM 0 comments

  Speaking of Marriage...

Isebrand comments on my Summit report (as posted at DKos):

I'm with BrooklynRaider: there's a real confrontation coming, and gay marriage is a critically important component of that, like Iraq, like new, sweeping energy policies, like health care. Right now, progressives aren't prepared to win either the overall contest nor--especially--the battle for civil rights for gay people. It's not discussed much by self-proclaimed progressives who are not themselves gay. And I'll believe the PR about Spitzer being a leader on the issue when he--well--actually leads on the issue. He's taken no noticeable action; he may never take action. It may be all talk. Time will tell.

I should clarify: I think that the central confrontation with the right will be economic, about the purpose of government w/r/t the role it plays in improving people's lives - and over whether it's some alien entity or something in which we are all equally invested. This confrontation is coming not only because the right needs to have it, but also because of certain economic realities.

That said, I agree with Isebrand that we should be pushing toward a confrontation on the marriage issue as well. It's a battle we are going to win, plain and simple, but justice delayed is justice denied, of course, and we should continue to move aggressively forward on it.

Still, I'm curious - honestly curious - about Isebrand's comment on Governor Spitzer. As I posted at the Daily Gotham some time ago, my understanding was that even marriage equality advocates didn't expect Spitzer to make a move on the issue in his first year or so. For instance, here's Alan Van Capelle of the Empire State Pride Agenda, quoted in the New York Times:

“New York has a lot of problems,” he said. “When Eliot Spitzer takes office on January 1, he’s going to have to fix Medicaid reform, there’s school funding, there’s a dragging upstate economy, and he needs to tackle those issues, but I’m confident that at the end of his first term as governor, we’ll have marriage equality in New York State.”

Of course, that's no excuse for complacency. But is Van Capelle's comment out of line with the opinions of others in the New York marriage equality movement? Am I going too easy on Spitzer here?

Labels: Eliot Spitzer, gay marriage, Isebrand, New York

  ¶ Posted by Paul Curtis 4:40 PM 0 comments

  Notes from the Summit: Reed v. Sager

A few more random clips from the Ralph Reed-Ryan Sager debate on Evangelicals and the GOP.

Reed smugly asserts that "I don't think that affirming marriage is bigotry." He goes on to cite opposition to gay marriage by Bush, Kerry, and Bill Clinton, who all agreed that marriage was 'between a man and a woman.'

"I call that consensus," he says.

Sager destroys him: yeah, he says, but none of them are actually against gay marriage. Nobody seriously believes that Kerry or Clinton oppose it. And even Bush has never done anything about it. Where's the marriage amendment?

Reed looks like a gullible evangelical, getting screwed by the GOP again.


During Q&A, a Hispanic radio host stands up to argue that Republicans can use social conservative hobby horses to bring in Hispanic voters. Sager replies that "the Hispanic vote is the great white whale of the Republican Party."


Reed agrees that, sure, younger voters aren't into banning gay marriage. But "give 'em time." (A woman behind me laughs in agreement: "they're kids.") "You think they don't care about the sanctity of marriage? Wait 'til they get married."

Clearly, Reed is smoking some pretty good stuff.


Sager asks the audience, "what is the conservative movement's answer to the fact that gay people exist?" A murmur of disapproval runs through the room.

They don't have an answer, and they don't want to think about it.

Labels: Conservative Summit, gay marriage, Ralph Reed, Ryan Sager

  ¶ Posted by Paul Curtis 5:34 PM 0 comments

  "McCain Got a Little Too Tricky"

Via the Corner, Fred Barnes on Special Report with Brit Hume last night:

BARNES: I think McCain got a little too tricky [on the gay marriage issue], by saying well, "I think it's a state issue and not a federal issue" and he voted against the federal marriage amendment. This is a very important amendment to social conservatives and the truth is, I think McCain, while he has broadened his contacts with [Christian Conservatives], I think he's being completely outstripped by Mitt Romney in appealing to these social conservatives. Romney's for that amendment and it makes a big difference.

BARNES: I think he's in a tough spot [on the federal marriage amendment], but it helps him with social conservatives if he changed his position. It's as simple as that.

KONDRACKE: Yeah, but it would hurt him among moderate general election voters . . .


BARNES: He's got to win the nomination first.

Labels: 2008, Fred Barnes, gay marriage, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Presidential election, Republicans

  ¶ Posted by Paul Curtis 11:13 AM 0 comments

  Mitt Romney at NRO: Vive la Difference!

(Cross-posted at Daily Kos)

This morning at the National Review, K-Lo puts Mitt Romney through his paces, as the Governor from the Great State of Dukakis/Kerry continues his effort to pander to conservatives. Given how the GOP spent 2004 redefining Massachusetts as "France, only worse," it can't be easy for the guy.

To the tune of "I Walk the Line":

Lopez asks Romney about comments he made in 1994, when he argued that gay marriage should be an issue decided by the states and denounced "extremist" Republicans ["People of integrity don't force their beliefs on others, they make sure that others can live by different beliefs they may have" - whoops! Don't let Dr. Dobson hear you talking like that!]:

GOV. ROMNEY: These old interviews and stories have frequently been circulated by my opponents ever since I took a stand against the Massachusetts supreme-court ruling on same-sex marriage. This being the political season, it is not surprising this old news has appeared again. But I have made clear since 2003, when the supreme court of Massachusetts redefined marriage by fiat, that my unwavering advocacy for traditional marriage stands side by side with a tolerance and respect for all Americans.

Like the vast majority of Americans, I’ve opposed same-sex marriage, but I’ve also opposed unjust discrimination against anyone, for racial or religious reasons, or for sexual preference. Americans are a tolerant, generous, and kind people. We all oppose bigotry and disparagement. But the debate over same-sex marriage is not a debate over tolerance. It is a debate about the purpose of the institution of marriage and it is a debate about activist judges who make up the law rather than interpret the law.

I agree with 3,000 years of recorded history. I believe marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman and I have been rock solid in my support of traditional marriage. Marriage is first and foremost about nurturing and developing children. It’s unfortunate that those who choose to defend the institution of marriage are often demonized.

Shorter version: "I supported civil rights until the courts started trying to enforce them."

You certainly get the sense that Romney has been carefully studying his conservative lexigraphy. One of the benefits of being a Republican is that if you want to appeal to conservative voters, there are certain pre-packaged words and concepts you simply need to cite in order to demonstrate your bona fides. It's a remarkably effective way for a political movement to exercise control: provide the specific language that politicians must use. Orwell understood this. In this case Romney sees the obvious out: this isn't about teh gays, it's about "activist judges who make up the law rather than interpret the law." A million conservative heads nod in unison: check.

On abortion:

LOPEZ: In a 1994 debate with Senator Kennedy, you said “I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it.” [...] What is your position on abortion today? On Roe? How do you account for what is obviously a change — certainly publicly — on the issue?

GOV. ROMNEY: My position has changed and I have acknowledged that. How that came about is that several years ago, in the course of the stem-cell-research debate I met with a pair of experts from Harvard. At one point the experts pointed out that embryonic-stem-cell research should not be a moral issue because the embryos were destroyed at 14 days. After the meeting I looked over at Beth Myers, my chief of staff, and we both had exactly the same reaction — it just hit us hard just how much the sanctity of life had been cheapened by virtue of the Roe v. Wade mentality. And from that point forward, I said to the people of Massachusetts, “I will continue to honor what I pledged to you, but I prefer to call myself pro-life.” The state of Massachusetts is a pro-choice state and when I campaigned for governor I said that I would not change the law on abortion. But I do believe that the one-size-fits-all, abortion-on-demand-for-all-nine-months decision in Roe v. Wade does not serve the country well and is another example of judges making the law instead of interpreting the Constitution.

What I would like to see is the Court return the issue to the people to decide. The Republican party is and should remain the pro-life party and work to change hearts and minds and create a culture of life where every child is welcomed and protected by law and the weakest among us are protected. I understand there are people of good faith on both sides of the issue. They should be able to make and advance their case in democratic forums with civility, mutual respect, and confidence that our democratic process is the best place to handle these issues.

This one is particularly neat: "It was the plight of the stem cells that made me see the light!" I hope some communications consultant got a bonus for that one. (He also includes another dig at those wacky activist judges and - what's that high-pitched whistling sound? - a jab at "experts from Harvard.")

The answer is actually a pretty half-assed attempt at sounding moderate while going after the anti-choice vote. He burps out some vacuous rhetoric about "civility, mutual respect," and the "democratic process" to at least make a show of covering his butt as he makes the only promise that matters here: a President Romney would appoint justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade. Operation Rescue will take care of the rest. There are ways to approach the abortion issue from a consensus-building perspective. This ain't it.

And in case there's any confusion on the matter:

LOPEZ: Does that mean you were “faking it” — as one former adviser has suggested — as a pro-choicer in your previous political campaigns? Why should anyone believe you’re really pro-life now?

GOV. ROMNEY: I believe people will see that as governor, when I had to examine and grapple with this difficult issue, I came down on the side of life. I know in the four years I have served as governor I have learned and grown from the exposure to the thousands of good-hearted people who are working to change the culture in our country. I’m committed to promoting the culture of life. Like Ronald Reagan, and Henry Hyde, and others who became pro-life, I had this issue wrong in the past.

Lesson learned: Mitt Romney, unlike the majority of Americans, is anti-choice.

Of course, Romney was for civil rights and choice before he was against them. Is 2008 the year that the Republicans nominate a flip-flopper from Massachusetts?

(Paul)

Labels: abortion, gay marriage, Kathryn Lopez, Mitt Romney, National review

  ¶ Posted by Paul Curtis 10:19 AM 0 comments