Romney signs NOM pledge for anti-gay marriage Constitutional Amendment
Is it just me, or does it seem like the more the pendulum swings in the direction of equality, the more forces connive to swing it back in the other direction greater than before?
The pledge Romney (along with two other GOP hopefuls) signed recently is a commitment to (as taken from the National Organization for Marriage’s blog):
- Support and send to the states for ratification a Federal Marriage Amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
- Defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court (which prevents states from being required to accept out-of-state marriages)
- Appoint to the Supreme Court, and as Attorney General, only those who support the original meaning of the Constitution and who will, therefore, not invent a right to gay marriage.
- Establish a presidential commission to investigate the increasing reports of harassment and threats to supporters of traditional marriage.
- Give back to the people of D.C. the right already guaranteed in the Charter which Congress gave them: the right to vote on marriage via the referendum process.
If we go back through the history of this, the argument used to be that “judicial activists” were making this gay marriage thing happen, and that we needed to stop them because the balance of powers was “broken.” Then, legislatures started to approve gay marriage, so that the argument has become that the people aren’t truly being represented. What will NOM say when popular referendums start to fall in favor of gay marriage? That the people have been tricked by Satanic forces? It’s like they simply cannot fathom the argument for equality.
They probably feel they need to get a constitutional amendment out there (which is basically a country-wide referendum) before it’s unmistakeably clear they’ve lost the battle. It’s highly unlikely a constitutional amendment will happen given that it would require 67 votes in the Senate, which the previous vote in 2006 was 49. While items 2, 3, 4 and 5 are possible, I don’t think an anti-gay president in the White House is going to stop state legislatures from approving gay marriage. Item 4 I have mixed feelings about, since it reminds me of how some states wanted time to get used to integration and how the Church thought itself as harassed by outsiders in the 1970s (regarding black ordination). Like I’ve written before, I don’t think yielding to homophobic “victimhood” is as useful as it might seem.
This NOM pledge basically announces that gay marriage will be a central issue in the 2012 debates, and unfortunately some voting blocs will probably hinge on this issue — though hopefully not as many as in previous election cycles. One has to wonder if Obama’s position will be “fully evolved” by then.