Decoding the 'Marriage Protection Amendment'
Once again, George Bush lifts his leg on the tree of liberty
 

June 5 2006
Counterbias.com
STEVE HOROWITZ

Conservatives love their code words. But then, they need them. They can't call their priorities what they are: intolerance masquerading as morality. So their propagandists devise signifiers like "traditional values," and conservatives claim all "values" for themselves, because apparently only they know what the traditions are.

Or they call themselves pro-life, when the only thing they're pro- is their own personal opinions being shoved down the throats of everyone else.

Being forced to acquiesce in prayer at school, even if it contradicts your beliefs? "Honoring God."

Then there's my favorite: "judicial activism," at best an expansive catch-all covering any court decision they disagree with, at worst an attack on the very concept of judicial review.⁽¹⁾

Of course, this week you'll be hearing a lot about the "Marriage Protection Amendment," as the Senate debates a resolution that has no chance of passing. "Marriage protection" is a code phrase implying, as Social Security "reform" implied that something was wrong with it, that marriage is in mortal danger -- the danger being the possibility of the lesbian couple in that nice house down the block having their love and legal rights officially recognized.

The threat is so dire, apparently, that the president of the United States, with his characteristic courage, has to tackle it head-on. As he said in his June 3 radio address:

"Marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith."

Okay, if you say so ...

"Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society."

Can't really argue that ...

"Marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious, and natural roots without weakening this good influence on society."

Huh?

Who's arguing for marriage to be cut off from its roots? Isn't gay marriage an offshoot, a new branch, so to speak, of this ever-growing, evergreen, apparently tree-like institution?

See, this is where the "values" fanatics⁽²⁾ lose me. They want me to think that queers are out to chop down the marriage tree, when it seems to me they admire it so much that they want to enjoy its shade like everybody else.

(I apologize for overdoing the botanical metaphors, but that damn Bush {oops!} started it.)

Problem is, conservatives don't like to share. That would mean that other people -- different kinds of people, with different beliefs and priorities -- are as deserving of life's blessings as they are. Goodbye, feelings of righteousness and superiority. Hello, unrestricted Jeffersonian liberty.⁽³⁾

And if values voters can't feel self-righteous and superior, what's left for them? Only the fleeting consolation that their president, with his poll numbers at Nixonian lows and midterms looming, is finally pandering to them, his once-trusting base, once again -- by appealing to their basest instincts, By not only excusing and promoting bigotry and intolerance,⁽⁴⁾ but by again denigrating a co-equal branch of government:

"In a free society, decisions about such a fundamental social institution as marriage should be made by the people -- not by the courts. The American people have spoken clearly on this issue, both through their representatives and at the ballot box ... Today, 45 of the 50 states have either a state constitutional amendment or statute defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. These amendments and laws express a broad consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage ... An amendment to the Constitution is necessary because activist courts have left our nation with no other choice," he said in his Saturday radio address, unaware in his unabashed ignorance that, as "activist courts" proved during the civil rights era, one of the most important functions of the judiciary is to guard against what De Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill called "the tyranny of the majority."⁽⁵⁾

But then, "values voters" find such subtleties irksome. And a simpleton like George W. Bush is simply incapable of comprehending them. What the uniter-not-divider, our esteemed decider, does understand is hate. And fear. Which is how the worst in us got us our worst president.

"As this debate goes forward, we must remember that every American deserves to be treated with tolerance, respect and dignity," Bush said Saturday.

Right, George. You are so full of fertilizer.

=

Footnotes...

(1) From a Family Research Council pamphlet called "Judicial Activism and the Threat to the Constitution," by Robert F. George: "Should courts be granted the power to invalidate legislation in the name of the Constitution? In reaction to Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion in the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, Thomas Jefferson warned that judicial review would lead to a form of despotism. Notably, the power of judicial review is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. The courts themselves have claimed the power based on inferences drawn from the Constitution's identification of itself as supreme law, and the nature of the judicial office. But even if we credit these inferences, as I am inclined to do ..."

Thanks, Mr. George, for your inclination to accept the superseding legal doctrine in American constitutional law! I guess conservatives like you are really decent people after all!

As for Thomas Jefferson ("The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time by the blood of patriots and tyrants") -- well, you just have to feel bad for the guy. Any right-wingnut can find something he said to support their views, from Bill O'Reilly to Timothy McVeigh. Although you'll never hear a "values voter," which the Family Research Council claims as its constituency, dredge up this Jefferson quote: "Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law." Or this one: "Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned ... What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites."

Nor are they likely to introduce to the "values" debate Jefferson's assessment of the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John: "A groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstitions, fanaticisms and fabrications."

(2) "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." -- Winston Churchill

(3) "An equal application of law to every condition of man is fundamental." -- Thomas Jefferson

(4) "I want my people to be the most intolerant people in the world." -- Jerry Falwell

(5) "Society can and does execute its own mandates; and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since ... it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself." -- John Stuart Mill

---