So it's marriage protection season again.

[Plaid Adder]

I can't wait to go through all this Federal Marriage Amendment bullshit again. At least this time it will be easier, emotionally, because I have come to the conclusion that the only reason anyone is putting this amendment forward is that there is no chance of its actually passing. There are enough Republicans in Congress who oppose amending the Constitution on principle that the thing will die just like it did last time--as soon as all the Republicans have had a chance to whip everyone into a frenzy over it. I don't think the bastards pushing it even _want_ it to pass--because once it passes, they can't use the issue any more. I mean, they're already in danger of losing the abortion issue thanks to South Dakota and Alito's confirmation. Just imagine what would happen to the extreme right wing in this country if Roe v. Wade were overturned _and_ the Constitution were amended to prohibit same-sex marriage. Where would their campaign donations come from? What would they use to whip up fear and hatred against their opponents in the months where there is no new audiotape from Osama Bin Laden? What would they have establish their "Christian" credentials with? I mean my God, what if they actually had to start running on a platform of making peace, helping the poor, and forgiving their enemies? Can you imagine?

No, this time around I'm not going for it. Instead of gearing up a huge campaign to fight a bogus initiative that will only come back again for the next election cycle anyway, I propose that as soon as the FMA is introduced, the Democrats counter with a _real_ marriage protection amendment, one that makes it clear that the FMA doesn't go far _enough._ We will call it the Real Marriage Protection Amentment, or RMPA.

The RMPA would define marriage as a permanent exclusive contract between one man and one woman until death do them part. It would ban divorce, criminalize premarital sex, and make adultery a federal offense punishable by stoning.

And then we can sit back and watch the Republicans go crazy.

The cracks in the GOP foundation will become yawning chasms as the right-wing zealots reveal themselves to the general populace by rushing to embrace this monstrosity, while the less insane GOP politicians call down upon their heads the wrath of the Christian right by expressing reservations about it. Angry words and perhaps blows would be traded between the Falwellians and the fiscal conservatives. Brawls on the floor of the House would become commonplace as moderate Republicans attempt to prove their point by publicly announcing which of their hypocritical right-wing colleagues would be first against the wall when the stoning provision was activated. Those who did not wish to go down with Santorum would find themsleves racking their brains for a way to oppose the amendment without looking like they were soft on premarital sex. It would be hilarious.

Except it wouldn't be, really. The glee you got from watching the Republicans turn on each other would not make up for the amount of misogynistic, homophobic, bigoted and insane rhetoric the debate unleashed; and it'd just make you sick to think that things have fallen so low that all you can do with the political process is manufacture bullshit legislation with which to beat up your opposition. And what if this country turned out to be so crazy that such an amendment might actually pass? It'd be kind of a fun game for a while, but think of all those people out there who would be so totally screwed if the thing actually became part of the Constitution. And think of the poor Constitution, having to pollute itself by embracing this piece of nastiness. No, you couldn't justify taking the risk. The Constitution and the country and the American people are too important to screw around with that way.

And there you have one of the differences between the two parties. The Democrats don't play this game very well, because they're still coming from the position that the law, you know, matters, and that legislation should be about making the country better and not about giving the other guy a good poke in the eye with a sharp stick. The Republicans have apparently cut loose from that particular mooring, and are happy to play dice with the Constitution if it will help them retain a majority in the House and thus perhaps avoid a Congressional inquiry into their questionable financial dealings.

Well, fine. Those bastards can go ahead and start their game. I'm not playing. They may not have better things to do with their time than start up another round of this bullshit, but I do. I hope they have fun yelling as loud as they can into their little echo chamber. And I hope the past couple years have convinced more of my fellow Americans that they have bigger problems than me.

Faugh,

The Plaid Adder

[Dudley_DUright]

1. I agree PA

Not a chance in hell of passing, but the Rove and the Kitty Kevorkian just wants to bring it up again to stir up the (ever dwindling) base for the fall.

[antigone382]

2. Their pathetic, divisive tactics are so transparent these days it's sad.

No, I take that back; it's not sad, it's amusing--it would be downright hysterical if not for the real people who are going to be burned by the fires of hatred and discrimination these assholes are so intent upon stoking. But you're absolutely right, it isn't worth worrying about. The reality is that those fires are growing weaker and weaker every day, and the rightwingers are running out of coal. As America wakes up and sees the real problems facing us every day, the many quagmires into which the Republicans have drawn us, they're making their very last appeal to the most base and servile elements of human nature, as they are prone to do. Only this time it isn't working, and they know it as well as you or I. The desperation coming off them is so thick you can almost smell it, that acrid-smelling sweat of fear and anxiety.

Excellent writing as always, Plaid Adder...recommended.

Edited for subject-verb agreement--I is very bright, indeed.

[Deja Q]

7. Sad, but effective.

For them.

They are only instilling destabilization amongst the populace, which is sad what you consider who told us he was a uniter and not a divider.

[Lib Grrrrl]

13. But He Is...

He unites HIS BASE. The "have mores" and the fundie assholes. the rest of us aren't REAL PEOPLE to him. Who cares what WE think?

[antigone382]

23. I'm not sure how effective it really is, especially now

Granted, last time it was evidently somewhat successful at playing on the fears and prejudices of the Bush base, but even then I didn't know one single person who really, strongly objected to same-sex marriage. There were some Bush supporters who would defend the "marriage=man+woman" argument, but they didn't seem to really believe in it; they were just supporting what the big man said. Most people I knew didn't see the problem with allowing gays to marry, and saw through this stupid, diversionary tactic for what it was.

And now that people finally, really are seeing just how much has gone wrong, I think they're going to reject the attempt to make same-sex marriage a wedge issue. Things were already extremely messed up in 2004, but everyday people didn't realize just *how* messed up. Now they do, and because of that I strongly suspect that Republicans quibbling over something so trivial as who marries whom (not that it's trivial to those who would be deemed second-class citizens by such legislation), is probably going to backfire on them, Terri Schiavo-style.

[Loki]

3. If these so called "marriage protectors"

wanted to protect their idea of the endangered marriage, they should start talking about banning divorce. Who-boy, you want to watch them scatter, work to include that in their fucking bill and make them all choke on it.

[madrchsod]

4. i can remember back in the 60`s when most states

rid themselves of the nasty "crimes" of divorce and made divorce a simple "civil" matter.the fundy christians at that time went crazy because they thought that it would be "to easy" to get a divorce thus ruining the sanctity of god`s divine marriage between a man and a woman. so i don`t think you are really off the mark when it comes to the idea of banning divorce. per marital sex and adultery are both no brainier`s, hell that would pass in a heartbeat.

[DRoseDARs]

5. "The Repubs. have apparently cut loose from that particular mooring" ...?

They're still docked in the harbor? I thought they put out to sea many months ago. :shrug:

[LisaLynne]

6. You've made me think about this issue in a new light.

You're right -- they're just playing games. Yeah, the Republicans have an element in their base that would really want to see this thing added to the Constitution, but I think those in power in the party know that it's never going to pass and that they actually don't even want it passed. They just want to force the Dems to come out against it. They're just playing political games with what our nation was founded on. It's sickening.

I really, really hope that this will come back to bite them in the ass, but I just don't know. Our country is so messed up from a moral standpoint at the moment that I don't think we as a people know what injustice is anymore.

[Lib Grrrrl]

14. No, You're Right, We Don't

We don't know what injustice is anymore. Until WE are the victim of injustice!

Too often, as a transgender person...I find little to no sympathy for the injustice and discrimination I face every day. In fact, a lot of people have the nerve to blame ME...the victim...for the nastiness heaped upon me by the bigots...the perpetrators!

Blaming the victim for their own victimization is quite popular these days, in america.

I hate this fucking country.

[maine_raptor]

8. Pushing this (FMA) is a bit like

trying to get folks to re-paint the Titanic while the lifeboats are lowered.

Somehow I do think that the voting public will see through this smoke and mirrors.

One point on your proposed Real Marriage Protection Amendment, I hope the part about criminalizing premarital sex is not retro-active, otherwise there is not going to be enough people left out on the streets to form a jury.

[Lib Grrrrl]

15. Couldn't Be

retro-active laws are not allowed, per the Constitution. One cannot pass ex-post-facto laws...It is stated in Article 1 Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution: "...No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed..."

[maine_raptor]

16. I know, tongue was firmly in cheek when I wrote that. n/t

[ClintonTyree]

9. Although the "marriage protection" scam is nothing more than a ....

smokescreen and a piece of red meat to throw at the Reich-wing extremists who have hijacked the Republican party, there are still many issues for them to press forward with should it ever pass. If Roe v. Wade was overturned, marriage was "protected" etc. this WOULD NOT be the end of the lunatic right's crusade to establish a theocracy in America. They would use these issues as a springboard to continue their quest for "A Handmaid's Tale" style of regressive society where religion replaces Democracy as the coin of the realm.
Don't ever make the mistake of thinking that if Roe v. Wade was overturned and a few other regressive policies were established as law that would be the end of it. No, these sick, insidious bastards won't rest until it is THEY who control ALL power within this country. They have no intent to be satisfied until they've accomplished that goal.

[mark11727]

20. Amen, ClintonTyree... I just remembered...

...the fable of the camel and the tent.

You get the idea.

[donco6]

10. Here's where they would go next, PA:

"Where would their campaign donations come from? What would they use to whip up fear and hatred against their opponents in the months where there is no new audiotape from Osama Bin Laden?"

I believe they would go after liberals themselves. No more pussyfooting around - they're firmly on the path to fascism, and fascism demands the obliteration of an opposition party.

[trogdor]

11. Brava!

If I were Harry Reid, I'd post a bullshit guard and have all the other Democrats walk out en masse. "Give me a call when you're ready to do some work," I'd say.

[Chipper Chat]

17. Or find some way to have a Senate Dem TV press conference

right after Boosh's Rose Garden macho event and lay out the DEMOCRATIC PLANS for AMERICA if the American People will only boot the ReStinklicans out of office in November. Might do some good.?.?.?

[Philosoraptor]

12. Ban Mexican Flags! Protect Old Glory! Stop the Gay Terrorists!

Stop inter-species marriage! Outlaw blowjobs!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Gays, Mexicans, flag-burners, terrorists..so many bogeymen so little time.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” H.L. Mencken

[sui generis]

19. you've struck on something but I'm curious

Short of proposing an absurd counter amendment, how do our politicians plan on talking about this?

All of these democratic time-worn stances disturb me:

1. We don't need the FMA - marriage is already protected at the state level
2. Amending the constitution is wrong on principle
3. We have more important things to address

...because none of them address the issue in any memorable way and just create a habit of downplaying the issue for those of us it affects. Why is it so difficult for our representatives to assume the clarity of the Feingold-ian or Hackett stances on this issue, to lead rather than deflect?

If we want to be able to put this issue down when it comes up again, as it will, we're going to have to prove that we're bulletproof on principle and make them look like the petty meddling bigots that they are, and to lead by stating we are the party of "values" and real values don't include bigotry. It ain't cool to be a bigot.

After all, they're not hesitating to judge us as immoral just for drawing breath.

I'm just concerned that we'll end up with another calculus of inoffensive ineffective mush mouth rhetoric that just leaves our flank exposed yet again.

I might even say "America may not be ready on the whole to recognize the families of gays and lesbians, families that already exist and for whom some states are making life as difficult as possible. But why should America adopt the pettiness and harmfulness of those state constitutions? Those families aren't going away. Gay people and their families and the people who care about them aren't going away. All we've done in those states is made life really hard for gay families. Is that what free America is proud of? Is that how we want to constitutionally describe America, as petty and small and mean minded?"

That's what I want to hear.

[dogday]

21. I don't support anything that limits rights

for any group of people... Marriage is taken care of at the State level.. When marriage ends in divorce, it is the state that has jurisdiction over what happens to the assets and children.. That is the contract you sign.

[sui generis]

26. but marriage at the state level does limit rights

if your marriage is not recognized in all fifty states.

by keeping it a "states rights" issue, our politicians are tacitly agreeing to keep it a "state's right to discriminate" issue.

I'm just saying it's shameful that a political special interest group such as Focus On The Family or Concerned Women of America are so willing to disavow the reality of gay families and make things as difficult as possible for those families.

Isn't it odd, these same people claim to be "inclusive" because they accept it's okay to be gay as long as you stay legally single, don't have children, and don't flaunt it.

[Plaid Adder]

27. I always said we would do better with the Feingold/Hackett approach.

At least we should give it a try. I mean, you know, TRY standing up for something once in a while and see whether, in the long term, it works. Feingold seems to believe it's time to experiment along those lines, and good for him. I hope it wins him great success and a lot of emulators.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[stubtoe]

22. They can't govern, they can't lead

So they pander to the lowest common denominator in desperation, trying to get the otherwise disillusioned to the polls. I call the GOP bankrupt.

[Jersey Devil]

24. The Repugs are going to combine issues this year

I can see the political commercials for the Repubs now: "Mexican lesbians are going to steal your wife and your job." (feel free to substitute "gay men" for "lesbians" and "husband" for "wife").

[demo dutch]

25. I can't imagine the American idiots are going to fall for this again!

[ninkasi]

28. I can't make myself understand these people

Nobody has ever even come close to explaining to me how any same-sex couple threatens my marriage. It doesn't, and this idiotic "protecting marriage" thing is the most anti democratic, anti equal rights thing going. As far as the gay friends I have, all are in committed relationships, and are good, honest, loyal friends. The thing is, when I see a couple, it just seems so natural and right that they should be together. Whatever the law says, I consider them married, because except for repressive laws, that's what their relationships are.

One couple recently adopted a child, and are going through the same joys and fears as any other couple would be. I guess if I could shake any sense into right-wing bigots, if I could get them to listen to me for just a minute, what's I'd like to tell them is how very normal, and natural, and daily hum-drum their lives are. They are just people, after all, and act like people They aren't demons, they are normal, average, everyday people. They are just excluded from the benefits that hetero couples enjoy, and there is absolutely no reason for it.

If, as the friend of several gay couples, I get this upset and frustrated, I can't imagine how bad it must be to same-sex couples, to be treated as 2nd class citizens...except when time comes to pay taxes, of course. When it comes to taxes, the government will take your money, and still deny your rights. Something is very, very wrong with this, and I pray that this country will snap out of it, and just let all of us live our own lives, without having to be subjected for a shrill, right-wing fundie group of haters.