Just in case you don't know or have had you're head buried in the political sand, the Senate is in the progress of debating the FMA, or the Federal Marriage Amendment that would protect marriage from the current assault. Here's how it reads:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.
Here's the problems I have with this:
1) Whether you agree with this issue or not, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not to be trifled with or taken lightly. The one time it was used to curtail the rights of citizens, Amendment XVIII, which created Prohibition in 1919, and we all know what a great success that was, was repealed in 1933 by Amendment XXI. The general rule is, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. And, apologies to all grammarians, it ain't broke.
2) If you watch CSPAN and you take in the debate from the likes of Rick Santorum from PA or Orrin Hatch from UT or others (Trent from MO or Brownback from KS most notably), you'll get the sense that the institution of marriage in this country is under attack. You'd think that married couples are hunkering down all over this great land in the bunkers waiting to be assailed by legions of homosexuals who are going to rip up their marriage licenses. This is just plain silliness. Go ahead, ask your married friends if they feel threatened and need to be defended. Go ahead. If anything marriage needs to be defended from heterosexuals who get married have a few kids and skip off when things go sour. The next time you hear about a homosexual deadbeat dad, you be sure to let me know.
3) You'll also hear that this is a religious issue. That marriage is a religious institution. It should be obvious to most Americans with a brain, but I'll say it anyway. Not all marriages are religious, many are what we call "civil" and have nothing to do with church or temple or mosque. My sister was married in one of these "civil" arrangements under the rotunda at the San Francisco city hall by the same judge who often appears in the news packages about the FMA. Every time I see him, I think, cool, there's the dude who married my sister, but I digress.
4) The Republicans will say that we can't have laws created by "activist" judges. That would trample on the fundamental right of the people to decide for themselves, so the argument goes. But what is this activist judge business? It means nothing other than a judge that makes rulings that you disagree with. Just like one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, one man's activist judge is another man's jurisprudence giant. When the Bush campaign in 2000 didn't like the decision of the Florida Supreme Court, what were they labeled? An "activist" court, of course. And what was the Massachusetts Supreme labeled when it chose to interpret the state constitution (written by John Adams in 1780 in advance of own federal document, by the way) so as to not discriminate against homosexuals. Again, an "activist" court. Never mind that 6 or the 7 justices on the MA Supreme Court are from the GOP.
5) This and all other family law issues have not just traditionally, but always been a states' rights issue. The Republican party is traditionally, but not always, the party that supports states' rights (Remember, George Bush in the campaign of 2000 "I don't trust government, I trust people") unless states' rights gets in the way of a larger political agenda (e.g. again, remember how campaign 2000 ended). You know what we call this, right?
6) Most of the states, including California, already have their own laws defining marriage as a union between a man a woman. That doesn't make it right. We used to have laws that counted blacks as less than half a person. Was that right? Women didn't get the right to vote until 1920. Was that right? The American League had the DH until, well, shit, they still have the DH, but that doesn't make it right. You'll hear Republicans on the floor of the Senate talking about how this amendment is really about children. What a load of shit. What this is about is bigotry, plain and simple. This is why Dick Cheney in 2000 (though he has since reversed his position) and his wife this year came out against this amendment. They also happen to have a gay daughter and so are more open minded than some of their political brethren.
7) There are not even close to enough votes for the FMA to pass as a law let alone an amendment which requires 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of all state legislatures. Why bother then? Because it's a political wedge issue. Remember that tone in Washington that was supposed to change with the new administration? Whatever.
You can agree with gays getting married or not. That's your business. But the Senate should not be wasting our valuable time debating this political nonsense when they have far, far more important issues to discuss, like the Designated Hitter Amendment, which I believe is making it's way through committee as I write this.