more thoughts on the gay marriage ban amendment

Thanks to Josh at Talking Points Memo for providing a link to this commentary by Patti Davis: Wedded Bliss.

She states, "The irony of our times is that the one group of people—gays— who passionately want to get married are slamming into a wall built of political concerns, legislative wrangling, right-wing religiosity (an oxymoron if I ever heard one), and oddly enraged TV pundits who seem to think the world will come to an end if two people of the same sex join in holy matrimony. . .

"Whenever I hear about the furor over gay marriage, and whenever I step back and look at how tentative and wary we are about love (I’m including myself in that one) I wonder the same thing: What is it about love that frightens us so much?
. . .
"The harder question is: What is frightening about a same-sex couple standing forth in front of the world and making their commitment to one another public? Is the happiness of others really so threatening? Maybe the bravery is what’s threatening. I don’t know if I could stand up to society’s wrath in the name of love. I hope I could, but as a straight woman, I’ll never be tested on that one."

A very well-written commentary worth reading. And Josh himself writes an entry that makes some excellent points:

"The truth is that this is all for the president. Most politicians see this as a highly-charged, divisive issue best left to states and localities to hash out amongst themselves until some sort of rough consensus emerges either nationally or from region to region. . .

". . . I think it's possible that more than a few voters who are uneasy about gay marriage or downright opposed to it won't appreciate the president's willingness to trash the country and the constitution just because his domestic and international policies are in a shambles."

I heard on NPR this morning clips from interviews with different members of Congress, all expressing hesitancy to do anything quickly in regards to this amendment proposal. Even former Senate Majority leader Trent Lott said this would have to go slow.

I think this just backs up what Josh Marshall is saying. There is no way this proposed amendment can be dealt with at the speed Bush would prefer. Lott was talking about it being summertime before they could really do anything with it.

MoJo blog has an entry on the faulty comparisons being made between Mayor Newsom and Judge Roy Moore (I'd link specifically to it, but they aren't set up for it yet):

"As for Kurtz' assertion that judges have "refused to swiftly shut down" Newsom, let's consider the timeline of Moore's legal odyssey:

• August 1, 2001 -- Moore unveils his monument, which he had surreptitiously installed without informing his fellow justices.
• October 30, 2001 -- Two civil rights groups -- the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State -- file suit in federal court seeking the rock's removal.
• October 15, 2002 -- The trial begins.
• December 20, 2002 -- U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson issues a permanent injunction, demanding the removal of the monument by January 3, 2003.
• August 5, 2003 -- Following an appeal, Thompson issues a bench order requiring the monument be removed within 15 days.
• August 18, 2003 -- Moore declares he will defy Thompson's order.
• August 25, 2003 -- Moore is suspended.
• September 29, 2003 -- Moore files appeal with Supreme Court.
• November 3, 2003 -- Supreme Court declines to hear Moore's appeal.
• November 13, 2003 -- Moore is removed from office.
• February 1, 2004 -- Moore appeals his removal.

"Math was never my strong suit, but August 2001 to August 2003 is 24 months, right? Two years? So, if conservatives really believe that Newsom is no different than Moore, they must be prepared to give the state and federal courts until 2006 to settle the same-sex-marriage issue. Right? Right?"

edit: WorkingForChange-Fiore Presents: Attack of the Gay Agenda - animation regarding the "gay agenda".