Vice President Cheney’s recent comments on gay marriage describe the views of many conservatives on this issue. Part of me wants to say that it was a politically tone-deaf move – on the other hand, I’m not so sure. While the Bush administration is trying to court the four million evangelical voters who did not vote in 2000 and who are viscerally opposed to the idea of gay marriage, I don’t see this decision as hurting Bush politically.
Bush’s base is solid, and evangelicals know quite well that a Kerry presidency would be disastrous – especially considering that the next President is almost certain to have a Supreme Court vacancy to fill. (I’m quite surprised this hasn’t happened already.) I also think that the opinions of many evangelicals are more nuanced than the distorted view of evangelical voters in the American media. While they may have moral opposition to gay marriage, it doesn’t necessarily follow that they’re willing to justify state action in that regard.
Furthermore, this is a position that will help Bush reach out to swing voters. It’s a position that is compatible with the principles of federalism and still leaves room for a Constitutional amendment should the protections in the Defense of Marriage Act fail (which I believe may be inevitable).
Politically, it was a risky thing to do. However, it’s also the right position for someone who believes in limiting the use of federal power. While Cheney risks offending evangelicals, it’s likely that position won’t be enough to sway any of their votes, and the potential to appeal to the crucial class of swing voters more than outweighs the political risk.
It’s a position that is compatible with the principles of federalism
I agree with my conservative opponents that, in regards to “letting each state decide”, that doesn’t really work. Doesn’t the “full faith and credit” clause of the Consitution prevent states from refusing to recognize marriages (of any combination of genders) certified in other states?
The first state that legalizes it legalizes it for everybody, under the Constitution. Obviously, I don’t have a problem with that, but I was wondering why you don’t apparently agree with this interpretation.
I used to think so too, but the full text is this:
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
I think the DOMA might actually be constitutional if one accepts that Congress can pass a general law that says that gay marriages don’t have to be accepted by another state. I think there’s enough wiggle room for the full faith and credit clause to be compatible with a DOMA.
Then again, it all depends on how the Supreme Court sees it. It’s pretty much a given that the DOMA will eventually be challenged and the SCOTUS will have to decide on it.
I think the DOMA might actually be constitutional if one accepts that Congress can pass a general law that says that gay marriages don’t have to be accepted by another state.
Hrm, I don’t know. I’m glad, by the way, that you presented the entire clause. That’s helpful.
The way I read it, Congress has the power to establish what constitutes proof of acts and records so that the burden of proof is the same between states; i.e. all I have to do to prove I’m married, no matter where I go, is show my notarized marriage license.
I don’t see how Congress is empowered by this clause to determine which records and acts are and are not credited by other states, or which acts states can refuse to credit if they don’t want.
But it is murkier than I had thought, I agree. Can’t wait to see this in court.
The pesky Republican Party platform’s call for a Constitutional amendment barring not only gay marriage, but any legal recognition of homosexual unions suggests your theory of evangelical voter “nuance” is unsubstantiated. The world apparently really is as black and white to evangelical Republicans as the “distorted media stereotype” represents. Considering conservatives view every issue facing society in simple black and white shades, and declare themselves as the possessors of the only possible solution to any and all problems, the Republican Party platform’s position on gays shouldn’t surprise anyone. In the era of “Will and Grace” and “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy”, this bloodthirsty intolerance could cost Bush some votes in the less homophobic red states…perhaps Colorado and Arizona.