From today's Post
Bush Advances Gay Rights
By Steven Waldman
Wednesday, March 3, 2004; Page A27
President Bush's endorsement of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage could prove to be a great moment for gay rights.
This may seem an absurd statement, both to gay rights activists who have roundly denounced the decision and to religious conservatives who have cheered it.
But in explaining the president's position, White House spokesman Scott McClellan insisted that while Bush backed the amendment, he would also support the rights of states to provide various partnership benefits, including civil unions. Though the news emphasis has been on the former, the practical consequences of the latter are huge.
Until recently, that position -- that states should allow partnership benefits such as insurance and health care -- was considered extreme. It wasn't too long ago that Howard Dean was thought unelectable because he signed Vermont's civil union law, which in effect provided a full slate of partnership benefits.
Amazingly, Bush has now said he can live with that, which means his position is not all that different from that of John Kerry or John Edwards. All three say states should be allowed to have civil unions. All three say they oppose gay marriage. The main difference is that the Democrats want to ban gay marriage by statute and Bush wants to ban it by constitutional amendment.
True, saying states may allow for civil unions is not the same as saying they should. McClellan added that while Bush believes states should be allowed to permit civil unions, he wouldn't support such legislation if he were still governor of Texas. But he isn't a governor anymore, and as a matter of federal law, Bush has adopted the same states' rights approach to civil unions as the Democrats.
Bush's willingness to allow for partnership benefits amounts to a monumental retreat for conservatives. It's as if they spotted an invading army on the horizon and decided to fall back to a more defensible position.
And what about that new, more defensible position? So far, 49 of 50 states seem to have taken the view that the defense-of-marriage statute signed by President Bill Clinton is sufficient to ban gay marriage. If the constitutional amendment is ratified, conservatives could ensure that it's 50 of 50 states.
But it is more likely the amendment will not be ratified by a sufficient number of states and may not even be passed by Congress. Even causes with broad support, such as the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s, have trouble making it to the National Archives, and a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage doesn't have broad support.
In other words, Bush will have retreated to defend a more fortified position -- and will then lose anyway.
I understand that this fight is not just about legislative practicalities but rather about powerful symbolism and principle. For gays, being singled out in the Constitution would be a monumental and historic affront, a genuinely low moment. And for religious conservatives, President Bush's willingness to amend the Constitution seems like a strong statement of solidarity.
But religious conservatives have a history of being taken advantage of when they focus on symbolism. They adored Ronald Reagan in part because he was willing to stand tall as an unabashed opponent of abortion. But he made only minimal efforts to wipe out abortions, and pro-life forces made little progress on his watch. When they succeeded in getting a pro-life president and Republican majority in both the House and Senate in 2000, they collectively decided that, despite having more control than they'd had since Roe v. Wade, they would limit themselves to the largely symbolic matter of "partial birth" abortions.
Liberals also focus on symbolism sometimes, but religious conservatives have special reasons for doing so. For one thing, they feel so misunderstood by the media and political elites that it's taken as a significant victory when a president of the United States just says, "I share your values." They feel far less marginalized; the details matter less than the overall message.
In addition their deep pessimism about the direction of the country makes them more willing to embrace the retreat-and-dig-in strategy. They are convinced that a tidal wave of judicial activism is going to make gay marriage a reality throughout the land, that ceding the ground of civil unions seems well worth doing in order to make a last stand for marriage itself.
Bush's political advisers presumably feel that by endorsing a constitutional amendment he will "energize the base" and that by opening the door to domestic partnerships he will seem compassionate. Politically, that may work. Substantively, though, he's legitimized domestic partnerships in a profound and everlasting way.
The writer is editor in chief and chief executive of Beliefnet. |
