Parsing The Politics Of Gay Marriage

(CBS)  Richard Grenell served as the spokesman for the last four U.S. Ambassadors to the United Nations: Zalmay Khalilzad, John Bolton, John Danforth and John Negroponte.

---

Nancy Pelosi represents the gayest congressional district in the United States. She also happens to be the most powerful person, woman or man, in the House of Representatives. With one simple directive she can force 435 Members of Congress from across the United States to vote on any piece of legislation she wants. Healthcare legislation, immigration reform, tax increases or gay marriage are all issues that Speaker Nancy Pelosi can choose to have voted on by Congress. She could schedule a vote at 3 a.m. and members would be expected to appear. She alone gets to decide what the House of Representatives votes on and when it votes.

But will Pelosi pass the DC gay marriage bill -- one of her district's most important issues -- before the end of the year? What is she waiting for? She has the power to do it immediately and DC needs Congressional approval to move forward with equal rights for all citizens.

Nancy Pelosi also has a Democratic partner over in the Senate in Majority Leader Harry Reid. Reid has the same power in the Senate with the 100 members that Nancy Pelosi has in the House of Representatives. Together, Pelosi and Reid have a Democratic President in Barack Obama. It isn't an overstatement to say that these three Democrats - Pelosi, Reid and Obama - can force any issue to a vote and make that issue a law. All Pelosi, Reid and Obama have to do is get their own party to go along with their ideas - no Republicans are needed to go along with the Pelosi-Reid-Obama agenda.

Not one Republican is needed to enact new laws. None. Zero.

So why aren't these three Democrats passing new laws and making changes? Where is the gay marriage law they promised when they were put in charge and the Republicans were run out of office?

The answer, of course, is and has always been that America is not ready for gay marriage. Nearly every public poll taken has shown that the electorate, albeit the public at large, is not ready. Pelosi, Reid and Obama are only reading public opinion surveys when they delay votes on gay issues. Even California, the most liberal state in the nation, wasn't able to get the electorate to see the value of equal rights for all. But the nation's capital has and now needs Pelosi's support.

What is needed to pass gay marriage is not a Democratic majority - this past year has proven that to be true - but politicians and judges comfortable enough to ignore what the majority of the voters want and do what is uncomfortable, unpopular - and morally right. Equal rights should not be debatable and certainly should not be put to a vote of the people. Would we ask the electorate to vote on whether or not Catholics and Protestants should marry? Of course we would not.

The Catholic Church or the local evangelical church should not be forced to bless the new union of a divorced woman if they don't want to. But civil governments don't make the same distinctions. While religious institutions should be able to pick and choose which unions they bless, civil governments should issue marriage licenses to all couples.

But the more that the gay leaders raise money for and give unconditional support to Democratic politicians, the more Democratic leaders are encouraged to take gay marriage voters for granted. Anyone who is still holding out for the Democrats to be the gayest political party is now part of the problem. The more gay marriage is made a political issue the longer gays will be treated as less than and unequal.

Equal rights should not be a partisan political issue -- so why are all gay leaders in one political party?

Nancy Pelosi doesn't have to pay attention to gays because there is no price to pay for ignoring them.

By Richard Grenell:

[TimothyKincaid]

Mr. Grenell is factually mistaken. His argument is based on a faulty premise.

It is NOT true that "DC needs Congressional approval to move forward with equal rights for all citizens." What DC needs is for Congress to do nothing.

The marriage equality bill passed by the city counsel will become law in the District provided that Congress does NOT act. They have 30 days to reject the bill otherwise it becomes official.

[cidaia]

BTW marriage is not just only between a man and a woman.

It is furthermore only between men and women who are eligible to procreate together.

Incest laws and other laws have protected the community, the family, and the as-yet-unborn children, from those who would marry when they are not a couple who can or should be viewed as a "breeding pair".

We have made great progress in recognizing that marriage is about more than just bloodlines and property - that people have an interest in choosing their own mate and being happy. So we have abandoned various laws that nullify marriages that prove infertile, etc. But to say that marriage is not linked with a very basic economic fact - that women and men need to come together to breed, and that a marriage contract protects the interests of all the parties to this transaction - it is simply not supported.

[rwsmith29456]

Gay couples should have right to a legal contractual union with the same rights and responsibilities of a married couple and if the union turns out to be a bad one, should also require a legal divorce.

[cidaia]

Baby-making benefits need to be shared between the child's parents. We as a culture are not obligated to support the commodification of babies-as-luxury-goods.

Hetero couples are granted a presumption of paternity because when a man marries a woman, he is signaling that he intends to make babies with her. To deliberately use this presumption to reassign paternity of a baby - as if a baby were something you can buy or sell - is both fraud and exploitation.

Children too have the right to not be classed as second class citizens. A baby is not a thing you sell or purchase shares in.

[hyhybt]

Cicada: NOBODY is suggesting that babies ought to be bought or sold.

[sbelknap01]

Interesting that the article says that Ms. Pelosi has nothing to lose by ignoring the rights of gays, presumably because 'all gays are democrats' and presumably this issue only affects gays. Nonsense. There are millions of Americans, straight, gay, bi, bored, too-old-to-care and every other darned thing that resent the heck out of living in a nation where we yell 'freedom' while denying equal rights to same-sex couples. And we're none too happy about sending millions in foreign aid to Uganda where they want to KILL gay people - KILL them, mind you, either. I doubt Nancy is dumb enough to discount all of us.

[dtcarson]

Most Americans may not support marriage equality - although that is changing - but strong majorities support a raft of other equal rights measures: workplace nondiscrimination, repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell, anti-bullying laws, and the like. Pelosi can and should put her weight behind those bills, and I think she should have the courage to support marriage equality because it's the right thing to do. I also agree that the civil rights of a minority should never be subject to a vote of the majority.

[sbelknap01]

Tell her. Her website email is very accessible. I was pleased to see she has a page devoted to LGBT issues.

[earth5667_]

I think it's wrong to just go with public opinion when we're talking about rights. Every homosexual should have the same rights a heterosexual does, especially when it comes to marriage. The time is now!!

[lelandt1]

I wish you were correct that the time was now, however, the voters have repeatedly said it is not. Our current strategy will only delay the time when marriage equality is a reality. A strategy going through domestic partnerships first will speed up that process.

[cidaia]

Whether what you want is your "right" or not is what's under dispute.

Just because someone has something that you don't, does not mean that "equal protection under the law" automatically makes you entitled to it. You need to prove more than that. Why SHOULD you be entitled to, for example, the "right" to "make babies" with someone you can't make babies with?

Why should we subsidize your right to share a baby with the person you want to share a baby with, instead of prioritizing the baby's right to expect a relationship with both its real parents? What you ask for there is more than heteros are allowed - we call it "child abuse" when a straight man attempts to give "his" baby to his new wife, as if the baby were something you can give as a gift. So why do YOU have the right to force your child to pretend that his stepfather is his "mother"?

[1manthinks]

The writer?s argument is disingenuous at best. Of course societies are free ? indeed, they have a duty if they wish to be long lasting, to define themselves by deciding what values they are going to uphold and resisting those they feel run contrary to its ideals. Those looking to equate gay rights with religious based freedoms ignore a fundamental fact: Our nation was based on the separation of church and state, and (expressly) the freedom of religion. Even to drag civil rights into the gay argument fails to acknowledge that it was always about men and women of color being able to do the same things as white men and women.

Those who try to circumvent the public (society at large) in trying to get gay rights legislation have found that today?s reality is that our society has deemed fit to reserve the right to marry between a man and woman. While it may change in time, it is not the responsibility of the society to bend to the whims of the few. Rather, it is the responsibility of gays to sell the rest of us (society at large) why we should change and put gay marriage on par with marriage between a man and woman. And, so far, no sale has been made.

[sbelknap01]

Civil rights was always about color? Hmmmm, perhaps you've never met a woman old enough to remember not being allowed to vote, obtain a divorce, own property, inherit a business, work without fear of sexual harassment, join the military, apply for a job as a police officer or fire fighter, expect equal pay for equal work...My grandmother, my mother and I have made some progress in gaining our civil rights, but since we are all white, perhaps we should give them back? Sorry, you pushed a button there.

I see same-sex marriage equality as a religious freedom defense. Religion *cannot* remain free if it is *defined* by the government. Divorce used to be nearly impossible, because most churches held it to be religiously wrong and our laws reflected that belief, prohibiting divorce even among those who had no religious reason to avoid it. Yet slowly, over the years, laws were enacted to allow it. And, by doing so, we protected the rights of churches to refuse to acknowledge it. No Catholic church is required by law to marry a divorced person. Their freedom to practice their attitudes toward divorce remains intact. No Church is being asked to acknowledge same-sex marriage, no church will be forced not to; each church will continue to have the *freedom* to practice its edicts as it sees fit. The only way to ensure this is to force the government to *stop* defining marriage according some specific religious faith, which it now does. Many religious faiths now wish to offer same-sex marriage in their churches, but *are not allowed to* by the government. They are faced with a horrible choice - to follow God's laws as they understand and practice them or follow the law of the land. How is this NOT a freedom of religion issue?

And one more tiny disagreement; you say it's the responsibility of gays to sell the rest of us...no, it's really not. It's the responsibility of...well, me. Middle-aged, straight, white, female, no particular religion, no specific political party, one husband, one dog, two kids, a cranky intolerance for intolerance, and a penchant for emailing my lawmakers every chance I get. Please stop thinking that the LGBT community is alone in this. I assure you, they are not.

[cidaia]

Civil rights has always been about persuasion first.

If the blacks had not persuaded the rest of us that we were wrong, segregation would still be legal. Period.

And that is the way it should be, because the only other possible arrangement is to grant some minority the power to inflict their opinions on the rest of us - which is the antithesis of "equality", since it presupposes that some people are smarter and have better opinions than "ordinary" people.

But since the black people DID in fact have a strong moral case, they WERE able to persuade a majority.

[greenlantern1]

Dear Sirs,
One of the most bitter opponents of the concept of same sex marriage is the Mormon church.
Doesn't the allience between Mormons and Baptists make for strange bedfellows?
Haven't we all been sickened by the sex abuse scandal by a Mormon sect in Texas?
Remember the Hughes loan? was that moral?
Incidectally, I doubt that any of our founding fathers was a Mormon for the simple reason that the Book of Mormon had not been written yet!
Clifford Spencer

[sbelknap01]

Oh, goody, it's kick the Mormons time again. Yes, the Mormon church is a pain, and so is Catholicism, but both faiths contain millions of members who disagree with their church and are working within it's structure to change it's policies. Thousands are leaving their faiths - and taking their money with them - which should get their attention fairly soon.
The Mormon sect in Texas is as much the Mormon church as Jim Jones was a Methodist or Hitler a Christian. Blame them for their Church being a pain in the rump, but pull up short of blaming them for lunatics using a similar name, please.
Last time I checked, none of our founding fathers were Wiccan, either, - or Buddhist.
You want a mean-spirited approach to marriage equality: try this one, it's fun: start supporting 'no divorce' laws. There are petitions popping up everywhere. I, personally, have been married for 33 years and no divorces in my family, nosiree - not for as far back as we can track on either side. So, until and unless my gay friends are allowed the right to marriage, I'm going to support getting rid of divorce. Since it seems a popular theory that I should get to dictate what your marriage looks like, I'm saying we drop divorce. Don't allow it. Ever. See how the lunatic fringe likes them apples.

[lelandt1]

There is a difference between goal and strategy. If we maintain our marriage-only strategy, marriage equality will become a reality in about 30-40 years (barring US Supreme Court intervention sooner). We do, after all, have to clean up the 31 state constitutional amendments and the federal Defense of Marriage Act this failed strategy has created. However, a strategy which firsts goes through domestic partnerships will probably have us arriving at marriage equality in about 10-15 years. The trajectory domestic partnerships was on would have gotten us there even sooner than that if it had not been halted by the marriage-only strategy which started in the 1990's. The marriage-only strategy has lost us 33 elections in 31 states with no wins and brought us DOMA. A great deal to clean us. Continuing to use the marriage-only strategy of failure will not work any time soon. We need a new strategy.

[lymis]

Bit of a historical error there....

The first and biggest waves of laws and amendments that passed didn't have much to do with any organized "marriage-only" strategy - they came about following the Hawaii and Vermont court decisions that said that their existing constitutions required that gay couples get exactly the same benefits as straight couples. When the Vermont legislature followed by creating Civil Unions, the language of most of the subsequent laws and amendments changed to the "marriage or any significantly similar union" sort of language.

All that happened post 2000.

It is seriously rewriting history to think that states that wrote amendments denying "marriage or its equivalent" to same-sex couples in the face of requests for marriage would have said "Oh, golly, sure, go ahead!" in the face of requests for Domestic Partnership.

The reason marriage is the right strategy is that marriage and its benefits and responsibilities are already defined and understood. Adding same-sex couples adds them to something that people and companies already know how to deal with. Domestic Partnerships or Civil Unions require some form of affirmatively creating them, and enumerating which rights and benefits are and are not included, which is not only a hell of a lot more work, but also results in a patchwork of benefits that varies from place to place.

And without a Federal definition and acknowledgement of Domestic Partnership, none of them come with any of the Federal Benefits, and a repeal of all or part of DOMA would not grant them. If tomorrow, DOMA was repealed, people married in Massachusetts would get federal benefits, while the Domestic Partners in California and Washington, etc, would not.

[licht1]

Gay marriage is now legal in DC, but Oral Roberts won't be performing any of the ceremonies.

See:

http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/dc-legalizes-gay-marriage-oral-roberts-drops-dead/