Happy Gay-Bashing Day

Today the Senate begins a futile debate to enshrine discrimination into the Constitution, a debate that is pure Kabuki theater, over a Constitutional amendment that has no chance of passing, a fact that everybody engaging in the debate knows going in, but is of no consequence, as the Republican'ts have decided to cynically use the issue to placate their theocon base. Ron Brownstein sharply criticized the maneuver in his column yesterday:

'That's vanity ... not politics," President John F. Kennedy once snapped at an aide who wanted him to provoke a confrontation with Congress on an issue Kennedy knew he didn't have the votes to pass.

Times change, don't they? [...]

In the latest Gallup Poll, 50% said they supported a constitutional ban on gay marriage; 47% opposed it. Nine other Gallup surveys since 2003 have produced similar results. There's no evidence supporters have established the overwhelming social consensus that should accompany any effort to amend the Constitution on this issue.

But like so much else in contemporary politics, the Senate vote isn't designed to produce a law; it's intended to pick a fight. The White House and Senate GOP leadership are betting that a noisy confrontation over gay marriage will encourage turnout this November from conservative voters — many of whom, polls show, are discouraged over President Bush's second term.

Brownstein notes that there are moral issues that are of paramount concern, but they're never the issues debated in the halls of Congress. He cited this Center for American Progress poll which shows that, while religion and morality play a valuable role in the lives of a majority of Americans, the most serious moral crises have nothing to do with the so-called "hot button" issues.

Atop the list, 28% cited "kids not raised with the right values." Next came corruption in government and business, followed by greed and materialism, people too focused on themselves, and too much sex and violence in the media. Only 3% named abortion and homosexuality as the nation's top moral challenge. Even among those who attend religious services most often, just 6% picked abortion and homosexuality.

These findings challenge the values agenda of both parties. They do point to priorities different from the conservative focus on gay rights and abortion. But they also suggest liberals don't hit the mark either when they try to signal their values simply by describing causes, such as reducing poverty, as moral imperatives.

"There is a deep hunger to get away from religion being associated solely with the antiabortion and anti-gay marriage agenda — there is a deep public yearning for an alternative moral vision," said John Halpin, a senior fellow and opinion analyst at the Center for American Progress. "But it's not just talking about the left's issues and tagging the word 'moral' on it. You have to talk to people at a personal and family level about what faith and values mean."

This is something all progressives should step back and try to understand. I actually think this is a little schizophrenic. If "kids not raised with the right values" is the deepest moral crisis, doesn't that fall to the individual parent to solve? Kids aren't raised in a vaccuum, despite the passive voice of that statement. I think there could be a role for government in helping with that, but if that crosses a line into abridging free speech I think it does more harm than good. Corruption, greed and materialism, on the other hand, go hand in hand with unregulated capitalism and the moral hazards associated thereto. If this is a true portrait of the issues affecting "values voters" I think there's a real opportunity for candidates who wish to regulate greed (by stopping the marketing of cigarettes to children, for example) and provide alternatives for parents. Sometimes I feel a lot of this is parents who wish to blame outside forces for their own failings or inattention, and there's no way government can soften that blow. Yes there are competing forces vying for the attention of children, but ultimately the parent can be responsible through open communication, while realizing that at some point they must let the child experience life on their own, and if they "raised them with the right values," their decisions will be sound.

If the government really wanted to protect marriage, they might start by encouraging couples to really think long and hard before getting married, so they don't lead to broken homes. Or they could improve the economic fortunes of young families, money being the single biggest obstacle to marriage. Or they could counsel couples on parenting skills, so that the authoritarian approach, which this study says is linked to child obesity, isn't favored. What they should expressly not do is disallow families who want to be together from ever achieving it. Especially when that doesn't reflect any genuine belief, but a notion of what they think their most radical supporters might believe. I think that if this guy is right, Bush is right where the country is on this but refuses to admit it:

Though Bush himself has publicly embraced the amendment, he never seemed to care enough to press the matter. One of his old friends told NEWSWEEK that same-sex marriage barely registers on the president's moral radar. "I think it was purely political. I don't think he gives a s--t about it. He never talks about this stuff," said the friend, who requested anonymity to discuss his private conversations with Bush.

Of course, the White House denied this, as they must. And until the rest of our lawmakers face reality and start talking their convictions instead of hiding them to encourage divisiveness, the kind of nonsense you'll see this week in the Senate will continue.

UPDATE: Julie Mason at the Houston Chronicle blogs some further thoughts. The flag burning and indecency bills are right on the heels of this gay marriage boondoggle.