The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and state legislature recently gave the Republican Party a gift: the controversy over gay marriage. During the past 25 years, Massachusetts has given Democrats the presidential bids of Ted Kennedy in 1980 and Michael Dukakis in 1988. Now it has successfully pushed an inflammatory issue to the forefront of the presidential race in 2004.
In other words, it's safe to say that the Bay State has been to Democratic presidential politics what Paris is to the rest of the Hilton clan (although in fairness, this could change with John Kerry).
There is, however, no use crying over spilled milk. The Democratic Party will have now to deal with the fallout of the Massachusetts decision in the form a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages. While Republicans are pushing the issue, they are taking an interesting tack, ignoring the issue of homosexuality itself and talking solely about marriage. In his State of the Union address, President Bush did not mention homosexuals, but he did say, "Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage."
One might guess that Republicans chose the slogan "Protecting marriage" because "Gay people make us really uncomfortable" didn't fit on a bumper sticker. The reality, however, is that the slogan allows Republicans to send signals to an intolerant base while hiding behind code words that belie the image of "compassionate conservatism" they prefer to beam to the suburbs. But make no mistake: Conservatives never had much to say on the issue of marriage until it offered them the opportunity for the latest in a long line of wedge issues. (Distinguished predecessors include "state's rights," "welfare queens," and another Massachusetts special, "Willie Horton.")
Thus, the Republican Party did not offer $1.5 billion in marriage incentives when a Friends episode showed Ross and Rachel getting drunk and waking up the next day as newlyweds. And no constitutional ban was proffered when Brittany Spears used marriage as a publicity stunt. So while the institution of marriage has been under attack for years, most notably through the rising divorce rate, Republicans have done nary a thing. Of course, given the fact that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is quietly approaching the all-time marriage record set by Liz Taylor (who, as it turns out, was once married to current Republican Senator John Warner), maybe it was wise for the GOP to simply blame homosexuals for the demise of marriage as an institution.
But are homosexuals really a threat? A quick look around the Internet shows that heterosexual couples are doing an excellent job of undermining the "sanctity of marriage" on their own.
For instance, a couple could head to the Viva Las Vegas wedding chapel and choose from among different Elvis Presley-themed wedding packages. Our personal favorite is the Elvis Blue Hawaii package, featuring lush tropical sets, smoke effects, and theatrical lighting (included are two hula girls dancing to the "Hawaiian Wedding Song").
Or if Elvis is just too sacred, one can wed at the Tunnel of Vows on the Vegas Strip. Since 1992, a couple has been able to tie the knot there without ever leaving the comfort of their own car. For those who are interested, the Tunnel of Vows "has recently been expanded to include a romantic ceiling with cherubs and starlights," according to alittlewhitechapel.com.
Given that marriage in an automobile may be a little cramped, why not allow anyone with an address, a pulse, and a dexterous index finger to marry you? All one has to do is go to the Universal Life Church's Web site and you can become instantly ordained. Your ability to marry friends is just a few clicks away. How undeniably sanctified!
But if Elvis or an Internet-ordained minister is a bit too religious for you, how about just declaring yourself married minus a ceremony? Well, 11 states and the District of Columbia have laws that allow you to become married without actually taking vows. These are what are known as common-law marriages: By living together for a significant period of time and filing joint tax returns (along with some other minor points), you can claim to be married.
While we mean no disrespect to those couples who chose to get married in any of the aforementioned manners, it may be a stretch to call any of these unions "sacred." Yet the government extends marital benefits to those couples, with equal rights given to those men and women who get married in a church or a synagogue. If the president and the Republicans really wanted to protect the institution of marriage, they would have been active on these fronts a long time ago. Instead, they gallantly waited until election time so that they could gain electorally from trying to provide scary images of unchecked but wedded homosexuals roaming the country, marriage licenses in hand.
Forget the fact that we lied about the reasons for starting a war; two men might decide to start a family!
The American public ought to have a debate about government recognition of the homosexual lifestyle. It is not a change that should be made lightly or without serious consideration. Such a nationwide discussion will never occur, however, if Republicans keep pretending this fight has anything to do with protecting marriage.
Sadly, there is no real reason to believe that Karl Rove and Co. will be interested in having this discussion and risk losing their hot new divisive issue.
Brett Di Desta is president of the Maccabee Group, a political consulting firm. Cliff Schecter is a Democratic strategist and political columnist for United Press International.
