Hypocrites and Liars?
The Federal Marriage Amendment died in the Senate yesterday. Honestly I'm not surprised. No poll in the US has showed that even a majority of the American public is opposed to gay civil rights. They may not be crazy about gay marriage, but I haven't seen a poll in a long time where a majority favored discrimination. It shouldn't be too surprising the Senate would be unable to come up with 2/3 who feel differently.
What killed the FMA is its sweeping language that doesn't just restrict marriage to heterosexual unions, but also prohibits any legal benefits currently applicable to marriage from being applied to other unions.
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.
Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
Mormons shouldn't have a hard time recognizing an "or anything like unto it" clause, but apparently they do. What bothers me more than the obviously mean spirited attack which this amendment is, is the blatant hypocrisy of some (most) Mormon politicians. In the Deseret News on July 14, Sen. Orin Hatch was quoted as supporting civil rights for gays and lesbians. A Sen. Bob Bennett spokesperson was quoted as saying Sen. Bennett prefers a version of the amendment which only codifies the definition of marriage. That didn't stop either one of them from voting to allow the amendment to continue its progress through the Senate. One has to wonder what they really believe and how much of it is just spin. If you want me to believe you when you say you support civil rights for gays and lesbians, then vote against a measure designed to prohibit them.
Governor Mitt Romney (MA) and Rep. Chris Cannon (UT) have both gone on record saying the amendment does not preclude civil unions. In Chris Cannon's words the amendment "defines marriage but leaves the definition of legal benefits to individual states." I would sure like to hear his justification for such a statement. The second paragraph seems pretty clear to me. No state is allowed to define a law that would confer the legal incidents of marriage on unmarried people. How do you get state's rights out of that?
Even Rep. Jim Matheson, Utah's lone Democratic congressman, takes a dubious stance on the issue. "...should same-sex marriage go into effect in one state, the rule of law could be challenged by lawsuits being brought in multiple states." It would challenge the rule of law? How exactly? I always thought challenges brought to the courts is the rule of law. Didn't the Founding Fathers set up an in dependant judiciary so that laws created by Congress could be challenged? Wasn't the point to prevent exactly the kind of self-righteous, repressive laws we are talking about here?
The religious wrong loves to quote scripture. Here's one for Hatch and Co. to think about:
I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
Revelations 3:15-16
Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada seems to be the only Mormon willing to take a real stand on the issue. "The Constitution was designed to establish and protect inalienable rights and freedoms. I do not believe the founding fathers intended for the Constitution to be used in this manner." ("The Las Vegas Review Journal") At least there is one Mormon who knows discrimination when he sees it and, like any good Christian should be, is willing to stand up and fight it.