SCORE
ROUND
ONE
for
the
Democrats.
Washington
politicians
generally
can’t
help
themselves
when
they
see
a
chance
to
score
political
points,
and
the
Democrats
in
the
United
States
Senate
took
full
advantage
this
week
in
the
debate
over
a
constitutional
amendment
to
ban
gays
from
marrying.
The
idea
of
using
our
lives
as
political
footballs
was
originally
the
brainchild
of
Republicans,
of
course.
First
the
president
backed
the
Federal
Marriage
Amendment
in
a
cynical
ploy
to
energize
his
conservative
base.
Then
the
Republicans
in
the
Senate
rushed
a
vote
on
the
measure
to
put
moderate
Democrats
on
the
defensive
just
before
their
convention.
No
doubt
the
Bush
ploy
succeeded
in
exciting
social
conservatives,
whose
friends
in
the
GOP
ranks
in
Congress
seemed
compelled
in
the
debate
to
describe
our
pursuit
of
happiness
with
apocalyptic
language
predicting
collapse
of
the
Republic.
But
on
the
whole,
Republicans
were
cleverly
outmaneuvered
on
the
issue
by
Democrats,
who
devoted
almost
all
their
time
during
what
was
supposed
to
be
a
debate
on
marriage
equality
instead
asking
why
the
Senate
was
even
discussing
the
question,
since
there
are
so
many
other
issues
out
there
of
greater
importance.
Barbara
Boxer,
a
Democratic
senator
from
California
who
has
actually
said
she
favors
marriage
equality
for
gays,
talked
at
length
about
these
more
pressing
matters,
including
Iraq,
terrorism,
overhaul
of
intelligence
agencies,
the
economy,
even
transportation
funding
—
it
was
a
list
only
a
C-SPAN
addict
could
love.
Poor
Wayne
Allard,
the
soft-spoken
Republican
senator
from
Colorado
who
introduced
the
marriage
amendment,
was
left
pleading
with
his
Democratic
opponents
to
at
least
defend
their
foregone
victory
with
some
arguments
in
favor
of
gay
marriage.
He
certainly
came
prepared
to
argue
the
“con”
side,
offering
a
litany
of
terribles
should
we
be
permitted
to
wed,
including
a
curious
reference
to
a
marked
increase
in
out-of-wedlock
births
in
Scandinavian
countries
since
they
allowed
gays
to
marry.
But
if
you
expected
to
see
Democrats
actually
rise
up
and
defend
our
honor
against
such
excoriations
—
did
Allard
mean
to
suggest
that
artificial
inseminations
for
lesbian
married
couples
are
to
blame
for
rising
Swedish
illegitimacy
rates?
—
you
were
sorely
disappointed.
INSTEAD,
TO
LISTEN
to
the
Democrats
during
this
week’s
debate,
you
would
think
the
decision
over
whether
to
amend
the
Constitution
to
ban
gays
from
marrying
was
about
anything
but
whether
we
should
be
entitled
to
the
same
marriage
rights
as
our
heterosexual
counterparts,
much
less
whether
our
relationships
were
entitled
to
equal
dignity
under
the
law.
To
the
contrary,
we
were
treated
to
a
procession
of
Democrats
who
took
to
the
podium
to
note
for
their
record
that
they,
too,
believed
marriage
ought
to
be
limited
to
that
sacred
union
of
a
man
and
a
woman.
But
not
to
worry
—
the
Defense
of
Marriage
Act
would
protect
the
country
from
the
scourge
of
married
homosexuals.
For
some
reason,
these
same
Democrats,
whose
voices
rose
in
indignation
as
they
shamed
their
Republican
colleagues
for
wanting
to
“write
bigotry
into
the
Constitution,”
never
stopped
to
explain
how
it
is
that
their
beloved
DOMA
wasn’t
writing
that
same
bigotry
into
federal
law.
To
hear
gay
Democrats
talk,
we
should
be
patient
with
these
senators
for
not
defending
our
relationships
because
their
position
on
our
marriage
was
“evolving.”
This
week’s
debate
was
a
sober
reminder
that
the
vote
on
DOMA
would
probably
be
much
the
same
today
as
it
was
eight
years
ago,
before
it
was
signed
into
law
by
that
legendary
defender
of
marriage
himself,
Bill
Clinton.
In
fact,
Sen.
Hillary
Clinton
(D-N.Y.)
made
a
point
of
reminding
us
during
her
Senate
speech
this
week
that
she
had
done
her
fair
share
on
the
marriage
defense
front,
before
she
went
on
to
praise
marriage
as
a
uniquely
heterosexual
institution.
THIS
IS
THE
same
Hillary
Clinton
who
was
feted
at
this
year’s
Human
Rights
Campaign’s
black-tie
dinner
in
New
York,
where
the
group’s
brand
new
leader,
Cheryl
Jacques,
talked
inspiringly
about
our
need
to
stand
up
for
ourselves
in
this
critical
“marriage
moment.”
Then
she
sat
down,
but
not
before
offering
an
irony-free
introduction
for
gay
marriage
opponent
Hillary,
who
gave
the
keynote.
President
Bush
has
spoken
memorably
about
the
“soft
bigotry
of
low
expectations.”
The
movement
for
marriage
equality,
“led”
by
HRC,
is
unfortunately
suffering
from
the
“soft
activism
of
no
expectations.”
It’s
hard
to
say
when
we
will
actually
witness
our
full
equality
—
including
marriage
equality
—
be
defended
in
Congress
by
the
men
and
women
who
are
elected
with
our
dollars
and
our
votes.
But
it
will
certainly
come
later
rather
than
sooner
if
we
don’t
actually
ask
it
of
them.
The
Democrats
certainly
won
Round
1
of
the
great
gay
marriage
debate,
but
what
about
Round
2?
If
“pro-gay”
senators
won’t
defend
our
equality
or
our
dignity
even
when
they
have
the
votes
in
the
bag,
what
can
we
expect
when
their
arguments
about
the
Defense
of
Marriage
Act
don’t
work
anymore?
Because
someday
soon,
DOMA
will
be
struck
down;
or
marriage
laws
will
be
opened
up
to
gay
couples
in
other
states
on
their
own.
The
Human
Rights
Campaign
squandered
more
than
$1
million
—
that’s
million
—
on
advertisements
that
never
even
mentioned
the
“G”
word
and
instead
tried
to
change
the
subject
to
taxes
and
Iraq.
At
some
point,
the
debate
finally
will
get
around
to
the
legitimacy
of
our
relationships
and
our
equality
under
the
law.
Precious
opportunities
to
engage
the
public
are
passing
us
by,
and
scarce
dollars
are
being
wasted.
Yet
there
is
no
sign
of
political
courage
on
the
horizon.
In
four
of
the
five
Senate
races
where
the
FMA
has
become
an
issue,
Democrats
neutralized
it
by
promising
to
vote
in
favor
of
it.
We
will
not
trick
our
way
to
equality,
while
everyone
is
looking
the
other
way.
The
case
for
our
freedom
to
marry
is
a
strong
one,
and
it’s
way
past
time
we
started
making
it.
