Centerfield

rickheller: "I favor gay marriage. I think it is a "future centrist" position, however, as marriage promotes stability and responsibility."

How so? It seems to me that "marriage" means a great deal less stability and responsibility than it ever has. Brittney Spears' recent experiment with marriage seems to underscore that fact pretty well. Ditto for the "spin dry" marriage chapels in Vegas where you don't even have to be sober to get "married".

Despite the obvious differences, it seems to me that gays are very much part of the larger society and that it would simply be a matter of time (very short IMO) before gay divorce statistics mirrored those in the larger society... which are pretty pathetic.

I think it's more significant to look at the way gay rights activists will interact with the Democratic nominee.

Both remaining Democrats essentially take the same position, which is:

1. Opposed to a constitutional amendment.

2. Opposed to gay marriage, but in favor of civil unions.

3. In favor of a states rights approach to the issue.

If the candidate continues to articulate that point of view clearly, it's likely to have as much (or more) appeal among independents as the president's position. A lot of independents are "live and let live" types who are perfectly ok with letting the states decide this issue.

Here are a couple of analyses from Andrew Sullivan.

First, pointing out that the Musgrave version of the amendment would actually outlaw civil unions as well as marriage.

And second, his latest piece expressing disgust at the whole thing.

William Swann: "If the candidate continues to articulate that point of view clearly, it's likely to have as much (or more) appeal among independents as the president's position. A lot of independents are "live and let live" types who are perfectly ok with letting the states decide this issue."

I would agree with that. My experience has been that most Independents have a libertarian streak of one sort or another and that this plays into that "live and let live" attitude.

My preference in all this, and the angle that I think the most pragmatic politically, is civil unions that are comparable to marriage but not called marriage. That's more than what civil unions have been as discussed and legislated thus far... while leaving the term "marriage" as a distinct word that keeps it's historical meaning.

The open question in all of this, in my mind, is whether this fight is really about civil rights or if it's about forcing the larger society to accept gays on their terms - an approach that the more militant gays have used in the past. I am willing to support the former, but not the latter.

Kevin and Will,

I think you are right on, although I admit to you Rick, my heart at times does not understand why a gay couple in a committed and loving relationship cannot be called a marriage. Especially when there are so many straight marriages that are so screwed up, but still get recognized by the government.

What bothers me about the President's position is that it is so reactionary. What he did was to propose that we expand the federal government into an area of public policy that it has never been, simply because he does not like the actions of certain state and local jurisdictions. That is a very dangerous line to cross if you ask me. Furthermore, it is contradictory to his own political ideology; Conservatives who support a constitutional amendent and then tell me that the government should be smaller are laughable.

This issue in my book also exemplifies why the Democrats are picking the wrong man to be their nominee. John Kerry is not for state rights, nor has he ever been in his entire career. He supports gay marriage, and is simply taking a position that allows him to have his cake and eat it to. I think, quite frankly, he would rather just avoid the discussion. That is not leadership.

Edwards on the other hand, coming from the South, and having a somewhat moderate viewpoint of the world is much more credible when he says that the best policy is to leave this decision up to the states.

I am afraid centrists are left to pick the better of two evils, again. In my opinion, over John Kerry, that candidate is the President, but I admit I am intrigued by the Senator from North Carolina and would be interested to see how I feel if he where to pull off an upset and become the Democratic nominee. I am not holding my breath though.

Kerry's vulnerability may be that he sounds mealy-mouthed when he says he's not for gay marriage when we all think that, in his heart, he probably for them. In only supporting civil unions, he's trimming.

Bush, while arguably 100% wrong, is being refreshingly frank and straight-shooting.

We may be forced to choose between someone who misleads us, and someone who won't lead us.

There's a lingering question, to me, about whether the president's position is really straightforward -- and none of the news coverage I've heard since yesterday focuses on that question.

The president said in his statement that he wants to constitutionally bar gay marriage, but allow whatever benefits short of marriage that states want to give gay couples.

However, it's the understanding of many that the president prefers the Musgrave version of the amendment -- which, at least on some interpretations, would impact civil unions as well as marriage.

Looks to me like that piece of it is being discussed in blogland, but not elsewhere. If it turns out to be true, though, the president will have much more significant difficulties with this issue -- e.g., if there's a real controversy over whether he's leaving room for civil unions.

Every interpretation I had heard up until yesterday said that civil unions where still open in the Musgrave amendment. However, even if they are not, I listened to the speech in it's entirety and I never heard Bush say that he supported the Musgrave amendment, just that he supported an amendment. He was very clear, at least in my opinion, that under his preference civil unions would still be allowed. Which is why I am a little confused by media reports, because even though I disagree with him 100%, Bush was more left of center then where the right wing would have liked him to be.

Let's keep in mind that Bush played the only roll he has in the enactment of a constitutional amendment. As President he has nothing else to do, but to state his opinion. It is Congress that will right and draft the amendment, or not, which seems possible after hearing some of Tom Delay's comments. After that, it needs to be ratified by 2/3rd's of the states. I don't see that happening politically if civil unions are not allowed. I guess I haven't completely thought it out, but if you are right Will, and it is the opinon of the American people that civil unions should be allowed, than a constitutional amendment that does not include that provision is more than likely dead on arrival. In which case the President's speech yesterday was nothing more than him stating the same belief that he stated over and over again: that he believes marriage should be defined as a relationship between one man and one women.

I am not saying that this is not the case, but is there any evidence that Bush does in fact support the Musgrave version of a constitutional amendment?

It seems to me that the President is in a bit of an election year pickle. On the one hand there are the Constutional Party folks who are arguably to the right of Bush's GOP base. And on the other hand there are the right-leaning Libertarians who would probably bolt if Bush overtly backs the Musgrave Amendment.

I've got a Christian conservative "Independent" friend who I have always found to be a pretty fair barometer of the far right's thinking. We've been discussing this whole gay marriage thing via email. And she's told me bluntly that she can live with civil unions but not marriage. My sense is that she could live with defacto gay marriages as long as they aren't called "marriage". She takes a very Christo-centric reasoning in opposing gay marriage. But, at the same time she understands that there are secular civil rights at stake. So, she doesn't like civil unions... but, she can live with them.

To bring this back to Bush and the Musgrave Amendment... it seems to me that he risks losing a few libertarian-ish votes in November if he takes too hard of a line on gay marriage - votes that he surely knows could make the difference between getting re-elected or not.

I would like to recommend reading the various posts by Donald Sensing over at One Hand Clapping. In a post today, he gives his reasons for why he believes this issue has come down to an amendment. He has also written several other posts sharing his ideas from the viewpoint of a Methodist minister and provides links to them here. His views and arguments are compelling.

I agree that Sensing's arguments are compelling. However... just to play Devil's Advocate for a minute here... Slavery was also an issue that huge numbers of American Christians believed very deeply in and believed was sanctioned by the Bible, AND believed that should be decided by strictly legislative means. I highly doubt that slavery would have ended before the early to mid 20th Century by strictly legislative means. And maybe not even by then. It took warfare to end Slavery in America. Right, wrong, or indifferently... what we're seeing today is a form of rhetorical warfare being waged on the gay rights issue, IMO.

To answer your question, Mathew, apparently the president's spokesman said at his press briefing that the Musgrave amendment "meets his principles".

Here's a quote from a Washington Post story:

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan told reporters that a version introduced by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., which is called the Federal Marriage Amendment and is backed by key evangelical conservative groups, "meets his principles." Signaling the desire for changes, McClellan said the administration will "work closely with Congress on the specifics."

My sense is that there's just a lot of confusion about this ... because Musgrave claims it allows civil unions, but apparently some of the other sponsors of the bill think otherwise. And legal scholars have differing opinions.

And then we have this reference to "making changes".

So maybe the president intends to draw the line between marriage and civil unions, even as the main bill being discussed is murky on that issue.