The issue of Gay Marriage is obviously the hot topic, and it's one that arouses passions on all sides (me included).
But to those of you who cry doom, that say, "You've fallen into Rove's trap!", I say chill. The issue'll pass. And probably sooner rather than later.
It's a huge issue, and one that cuts to the core of our identity as Democrats. Rove may have introduced the debate, but we are responding to the Democrats, not Rove. The Democratic contingent in the Senate has handled the issue adroitly -- it doesn't matter whether they are for or against gay marriage or civil unions, they simply say that the Constitution is not the place to address the issue.
It's a simple response, and one that avoids the emotional baggage of debating the merits of the issue. There's a reason to the US Supreme Court likes to decide charged issues based on procedural grounds. It delays the issue until such a time that passions are cooled, and cooler heads can prevail.
This amendment is dead. The votes aren't there in the Senate. They aren't there in the House. The cable news networks were handing the Hate Amendment's Republican backers their asses on a platter. Then Kerry came out in favor of a Massachusetts amendment. It may be a great move politically for him, but it gave the story additional legs. And now, Bush's gambit doesn't look as political as it did just yesterday. Why, they are both supporting Gay Marriage amendments! (And damned be the differences in those amendments.) Not to mention that Kerry's endorsement was completely unencessary. It's not as if he has a vote on the matter.
So Rove is now laughing at us, right? Democrats divided, right?
Legislatively this issue isn't going anywhere. And while we all want to discuss this issue right now, I can guarantee we'll be talking about something else in two weeks. We're going to move on, and so is the country.
Sure, Bush will talk about it in his speeches, to which Democrats should ask, "Well, why aren't the two Republican controlled chambers of Congress introducing the amendment?" Expose the Hate Amendment as a political gambit, and not only do we minimize the damage, but could potentially enrage the Right -- as eager as they are for ACTION this very second.
It's true, we have moved the debate to the left. Civil unions are a given, the battle is now over nomenclature. And it's a battle I am more than happy to cede at this time. But calls for a Constitutional Amendment are a whole different matter.
Like I've said elsewhere, if this is a litmus test, it should be a pretty darn easy one to meet. You won't see me judge candidates over their gun positions, abortion stances, free trade, or whether they think gays should be allowed to marry. Just don't seek to enshrine discrimination, of any kind, in the Constitution.
As for November, I'm confident we'll all be on the same team. But it's not November. It's February. And there's nothing wrong with speaking out about what's right and what is wrong.
It's called Democracy.