For forty years the Republican Party has preached the gospel of federalism and states' rights. Democrats and cynics have said that Republicans did this primarily because federalism and states' rights are useful tools for keeping African-Americans' noses in the mud. Republicans have protested that that is not the case, that their commitment to federalism and states' rights is a deep attachment to constitutional principle.
Now comes the Federal Marriage Amendment, and Republican commitment to federalism and states' rights is out the window faster than you can say "secure the right-wing base."
A deep attachment to constitutional principle indeed!
UPDATE: The Minuteman lives up to his name, denouncing the FMA in the name of constitutional principle in less than a minute:
JustOneMinute: proper conservatives do not like to amend the constitution; Democrats would amend it every day of the week and twice on Sundays,* and we need to oppose that sort of opportunistic tinkering.
and goes on to do his best Mr. T. imitation:
Let's remember that Rudy Giuliani will be a prominent speaker at the Republican convention in New York City. It's hard to imagine that a gay-bashing convention is what Bush and Rove are looking for, and Bush did conclude his statement with a call for "kindness and goodwill and decency". In fact, we pity the poor fool at the RNC who has the unhappy task of digging up some gay Republicans to appear on the podium alongside the black Republicans.
*This, however, is a lie! We Democrats do not amend the constitution. We just recognize what it always said, but what previous generations were too blinkered to understand!
:-)
FURTHER UPDATE: As Nick Confessore writes, "On the 2000 campaign trail, Bush told Larry King he believed states "can do what they want to do" on gay marriage, a position Vice President Dick Cheney is also on record as supporting." And the White House press corps, for once, picks up the scent. Scott McClellan responds by saying that Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia:
Posted by DeLong at February 25, 2004 12:13 PM | TrackBackPress Briefing by Scott McClellan: Q Scott, on the day's other big announcement, four years ago, in the South Carolina primary debate, the President was asked, "So if a state were voting on gay marriage, you would suggest to that state not to approve it?" And the response of the President was, "The state can do what they want to do." When did the President change his mind that the issue of gay marriage was not a matter for states and, in fact, was a federal issue?
MR. McCLELLAN: John, the President has always firmly believed that marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. He has always held that view. And I think what you're referring to is that the President has talked about how states have the right to enter into their own legal arrangements. And that's what the President is referring to.
Q The words in the question were "gay marriage," and I do realize that the President has opposed gay marriage, but when did he --
MR. McCLELLAN: The President's view was very well-known during the campaign of 2000, that he believes marriage is a sacred institution. And he supported efforts to protect and defend the sanctity of marriage.
Q Which is what I just said. But my question was, to go to the actual substance of my question, was, when did the President change his mind that this was not an issue for states and, in fact, was a federal issue?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I dispute the premise of your question. His views have always been well-known on this very issue.
Q Yes, but he always described it as a state issue. Now he's describing it as a federal issue. When did he change his mind?
MR. MCCLELLAN: No, no, he said that states have the right to enter into their own legal arrangements.
Go ahead, Terry.
Q Scott, is this an issue that the President wants to raise in the campaign and try to draw a distinction with Senator Kerry, who opposes a constitutional amendment?
MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, it's an issue of national importance. You heard the President address that earlier, in his remarks. There is confusion -- growing confusion in this country right now because of this issue. And that is why we need clarity. The President specifically called for this debate to be conducted in a civil manner, without bitterness or anger, as he put it, and with respect for one another. The President recognizes that an issue of national importance like this requires leadership and requires a President to make decisions, and then to raise the level of discourse and have a civil discussion on this issue. And that's what he's done.
Q Does that mean that he will try to draw a distinction with Senator Kerry? You know, he said -- the President said last night, it's all about choices. Is he going to try to say that this is what he chooses, and here's what I choose?
MR. McCLELLAN: The President is going to continue to fight to protect the sanctity of marriage. I think you have to look at this in the context of recent events. We cannot pretend that the events in Massachusetts or San Francisco are not happening. And that's why the President is providing leadership, and making a decision based on principle. And he will continue to talk about the importance of protecting this sacred institution.
Q Scott, two questions. Just to follow up on John's, he was asked in that debate specifically about gay marriage, not about states having the right to form contractual arrangements, domestic partnerships or civil unions. So did he misspeak, when asked directly about gay marriage, when he answered, it should be up to the states?
MR. McCLELLAN: What I'm telling you is that the President has always believed marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman; that it should be an institution that is protected. And that's what the President has always made very clear. John was talking about a change, and I don't see that.
Q Well, but in that actual quote he was directly asked, and the words, "gay marriage" were used in the question to him.
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think the President's views are very well known, and they are what they have always been.
Is it true that Greenspan is recommending cuts
in Social Security to help pay for the tax
cuts for his class? Is this the same man who
buggered up SS some 20 years ago? Has he no
shame??
How did Greenspan bugger up SS?
He wasn't Fed chair then.
Although it enrages one to read this, isn't it good for the Democrats that Greenspan came out in favor of SS cuts before the election?
I don't see how this can help bush.
I couldn't tell you how many times i've heard William Niskanen drone on about the principles of limited government and individual liberties embodied in the US Constitution.
Now the Republicans, the party of non-interventionsit government, want to greatly expand the government's powers to curtail individual civil liberties by amending the very document that it purports establishes limits on the power of government to intrevene in the lives of individual Americans.
Truly twisted.
Posted by: Adam on February 25, 2004 12:29 PMActually, I find Greenspan's recommendations for Social Security reform reasonable and fairly responsible, even if there is good reason to disagree with some of them. There is nothing sacred about the current indexing scheme, and what is the problem with gradually increasing the retirement age if life expectancies and the span of a person's useful worklife is increasing, there is nothing wrong to consider the possibility that benefits have become to generous relative to contributions for large segments of the population.
This certainly sounds better to me that means testing or capping benefits in terms of keeping it a real social insurance program.
Who in this administration would you prefer to have discussing social security reforms? Any bigwig? Any of the academic economists -haven't they just been the most disappointingly servile bunch?
I do not like the way this guy has been anointed as the universal economic expert on everything. I do not like the way he misuses and abuses this anointment. I understand why he may need to engage in opaque and oblique double talk for testimony on monetary policy. But he uses it all the time for everything and it is getting tiresome. About anything that might offend is political patrons (Republicans, basically) he gets very cagey and mysterious. Will he ever speak as bluntly about tax policy? Will he ever acknowledge that there are alternative points of view? Does he ever invite an even handed discussion of different policy options.
Why is he like this? He has ulterior motives? He is an egomaniacal fart? He wants to preserve his oracular mystique? Who knows? But it is creepy. It gives the Democrats ammunition that they should use. And it is harmful to healthy policy debate. Even good economists engage too much in an inappropriate cult of mystique, and people like Greenspan make it worse.
Greenspan chaired the commission in the 1980s under Reagan that raised SS taxes by about 50% in order to be able to fund SS in the future. This tax increase generated the SS surplus (Now approximately $3 Trillion) that will pay for SS benefits through at least 2040.
It is espectially galling that AG would recommend cutting SS benefits. If we are going to do that wouldn't the fair thing to do be to cut payroll taxes by 50% and roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy?
There is not SS problem for the forseeable future. There will be a fiscal problem once the Federal government can no longer "borrow" money from SS.
Posted by: bakho on February 25, 2004 12:46 PMDon't you see that preventing gays from getting married will:
1. Immediately reduce the divorce rate to single digits.
2. Prevent people like Britney Spears from marrying on a whim and abusing the institution.
3. Prevent straight people from being married by Elvis in Los Vegas.
4. Convince gay people to immediately become straight, marry and produce those grandkids their parents have always wanted.
5. Prevent teen pregnancies
6. Put an end to abortion.
7. Stop internet porn
8. Eliminate gay priests.
9. End pedophilia
10. Endow God's eternal blessing on America and cause him to smite all unrepentant homosexuals, non-Christians and people who don't vote Republican.
Sorry, I got off topic because of the first two posts.
As a heterosexual white male, heck yeah I want to support the age old traditions of marriage that have served as the foundation of civilization for thousands of years. Let's just do it right. I want real marriage back.
I want my wife and kids to become my property. I don't want them running off the signing contracts and owning property and making decisions without my permission. I want polygamy and concubines -as many as I want. I want the right to arrange my kids marriages. I want the sole right to divorce. The world has been going to ruination ever since these time honored principles were lost. I want the power to impose the death penalty on my sons if they are impious. Old Testament marriage for me! I will be taking a close look at this amendment to see if Bush is waffling.
Seriously, the whole thing is a farce. What are the chances this amendment will pass in Congress? If it does, what are the chances it will get 3/4 of the states to ratify? Especially if it designed to satisfy the base and outlaw civil unions. And how long will it take? And suppose it does pass, how many years of turmoil and legal mess will have to be undone? And suppose it doesn't, what will it do to protect heterosexual marriage in states where people feel strongly in favor of it.
Seems to me that the admin could have made several proposals that could realistically help solve things, starting now. But as usual, they chose a cheap fraudulent approach, and will try to use it as a cheap wedge issue.
By the way, I was reading about the history of anti-miscegenation laws, and there was no problem with states having different regulations. This is really something that should be handled on a state by state basis. If some one knows any different, fill me in on it.
My proposal: civil sanctions of marriage with religious is a historical aberration from the middle ages that needs to be fixed. So... the govt sanctions civil unions only. Holy marriage is something for churches only. Civil unions for everyone!
Posted by: jml on February 25, 2004 01:02 PMBush's views on this or that were very well known in 2000? I wonder if this also applies to fiscal responsibility? Re-roll the 2000 tapes - tax cuts and more spending. Yep - Bush was clearly saying he was against fiscal responsibility. But I guess his new press secretary got the talking points on the gay marriage issue: repeat the same meaningless line over and over ad nausam. Please!
Posted by: Harold McClure on February 25, 2004 01:09 PMBartolo - as I read what Greenspan said today, you are 100% right. He is for the income tax cuts being permanent even as he says (rightly) we have a fiscal crisis over the long-term. Greenspan knows that the only other spending cuts that can plausibly be passed will not pay for these tax cuts UNLESS we cut Social Security benefits and retain the current level of payroll taxes. So it's raise taxes on employment to cut taxes on capital income. Angrybear observes that this level of honesty will likely sink the chances for Greenspan's vision to come true as it will open the door for Bush to be questioned on this. But then the Economic Report of the President (chapter 6) made a similar proposal already.
Posted by: Harold McClure on February 25, 2004 01:13 PMMcClellan uses " sacred " several times and "sanctiity" at least once. Bush did not use these words in his pronouncement. Doro Bush and Neil Bush are divorced.Does Scott(TheHead) McClellan believe that these two sibs are less sacred? Someone should have asked Dobson. Remember, Ashcroft was Dobson's choice for president before Poppy got the money machine cranked up.
Greenspeak!!!!? My call is that he will not be re-appointed in May. Ben Bernenke is my pick. He seems to come out after Greenspeak and clarify the problems that arise from the Delphic perorations of Sir Alan. Mr. Roche of Morgan Stanley and Mr. Gross of Pimco appear to forecast dire consequences from the profligate policies promulgated by these profane( meaning 4 b) politicians. Almost as good as Spiro's "nattering nabobs of negativity"
's " nattering nabobs of negativity
Take any issue other than guns and polluting
and the republicans aren't for individual
or states rights. When have they ever sided
with the individual against their religious
doctrine?
Shorter Scott McClellan--Move right along, nothing to see here.
Posted by: dmh on February 25, 2004 02:00 PMjml, you forgot to mention you want your brides to be twelve years old.
Posted by: ogmb on February 25, 2004 03:29 PMIs Greenspan being subtle? By raising the issue of SS cuts, it obviously brings up the question of revenues. If revenues are not enough, then how are the Bush tax cuts affordable? If Greenspan feels he cannot criticize the Bush tax cuts, his remarks about the third rail would seem to put the subject back in the public spotlight? Or is Mr. Greenspan a cynical out of touch old man that is more concerned about his own self interest and tax cuts than he is about people that will need their Social Security?
Posted by: bakho on February 25, 2004 05:36 PMIt's not just the states' rights vs. federal power thing that disturbs me. It's the complete faith in markets when it comes to economics, and the desire to essentially manage the market of ideas. The religious right fervently believes that their moral views are self-evidently correct. So why the need to legislate this morality? If a free market's the ideal for the organization of the nation's economic activity, why not a free market for ideas? If their beliefs truly are superior, then in a free market of ideas, fundamentalism will be a steamroller of almighty justice, figuratively crushing liberals like me to heathen jelly, ripe for holy canning.
"As a heterosexual white male, heck yeah I want to support the age old traditions of marriage that have served as the foundation of civilization for thousands of years. Let's just do it right. I want real marriage back.
I want my wife and kids to become my property. I don't want them running off the signing contracts and owning property and making decisions without my permission. I want polygamy and concubines -as many as I want."
Well, jml, I'd go even further than you. I want to bring back rape and infanticide, both well established traditions for hundreds of thousands of years in hunter-gatherer bands. Let's roll back the last few thousand years of civilization and go back to REAL traditional values, the ones that served us well for millenia!
Posted by: damon on February 25, 2004 07:15 PMOops, sorry ... I forgot the world was created 6,640 years ago.
I believe it was a Tuesday.
Posted by: damon on February 25, 2004 07:17 PM"If a free market's the ideal for the organization of the nation's economic activity, why not a free market for ideas?"
Iow, Sanfran should become the Vegas for gay weddings, and if it catches on and fills the municipal coffers other cities & states will follow suit.
Posted by: ogmb on February 25, 2004 07:49 PMRE Greenspan- I'm glad that I am not the only one who has trouble figuring out exactly what the guy says and also has a hard time figuring the net effect of whatever it is he is saying is.
But my feeling is that his overall influence is bad, but given the current situation, his influence is a net good, because the alternative experts who would be giving high profile testimony in his place would be really really bad, at least for the next 11 months. Unless of course he allows, as he as in the past, to be vague enough to allow nut cases to say that he supports their nutcase plans, and then he is quiet until the nutcase plan is passed, and then he issues ambiguous semi-quasi-qualified-non-denials of suggestions that he didn't explicitly completely disagree with opponents to the nucase plan.
Can you tell I've been practicing? Do I have a chance? I'm almost as good as Greenspan at judicious talk, don't you think? When his this guy's term up? Can some one put in a good word for me? Prof D, can you pull some strings?
Posted by: jml on February 25, 2004 08:14 PMSorry to wander back on subject, but did anybody notice the what the Supremes did yesterday? (After putting him in office) They fought off a Bush-backed effort to argue that states not only may use public money to support religiously based educational institutions, but that they must. Over half of states have laws, or in some cases constitutional provisions, barring state funding of religious schools. In this case, too, it seems that a stern federal zealot is needed to set things straight. The states just can't get it right. The same problem keeps coming up on environmental and safety regulation. States rights are fine, until business or the religious right begins to complain. Someday soon, somebody is going to propose a Constitutional amendment overturning church-state seperation.
Posted by: K Harris on February 26, 2004 04:16 AMThis is hardly the first time that self-described conservatives have ignored federalism and states' rights when it suits them. In fact, it's hard to find a conservative who will object on federalism grounds to a federal proposal that suits the right wing agenda. A couple of examples off the top of my head:
1. The proposed flag-burning amendment, suppported by Bush and most Republicans, read "Congress shall have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the United States flag." The states, such as Texas, the loser in the Texas v. Johnson case that started the controversy, would still have no power to do so; that power would entirely be usurped by the Federal goverment.
2. The partial-birth abortion ban made that procedure a federal criminal offense, even though murder generally is not, but is rather left up to the states to prosecute.
3. So-called conservatives are now supporting a measure that would immunize gun manufacturers and dealers from lawsuits in state as well as federal courts.
4. The proposed victims' rights constitutional amendment, supported by Bush, would prevent states from setting their own standards on what rights crime victims would have in state criminal cases.
Posted by: VinnyD on February 26, 2004 05:52 AMThis is hardly the first time that self-described conservatives have ignored federalism and states' rights when it suits them. In fact, it's hard to find a conservative who will object on federalism grounds to a federal proposal that suits the right wing agenda. A couple of examples off the top of my head:
1. The proposed flag-burning amendment, suppported by Bush and most Republicans, read "Congress shall have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the United States flag." The states, such as Texas, the loser in the Texas v. Johnson case that started the controversy, would still have no power to do so; that power would entirely be usurped by the Federal goverment.
2. The partial-birth abortion ban made that procedure a federal criminal offense, even though murder generally is not, but is rather left up to the states to prosecute.
3. So-called conservatives are now supporting a measure that would immunize gun manufacturers and dealers from lawsuits in state as well as federal courts.
4. The proposed victims' rights constitutional amendment, supported by Bush, would prevent states from setting their own standards on what rights crime victims would have in state criminal cases.
Posted by: VinnyD on February 26, 2004 05:53 AMStates' rights are used by people who are on the losing end of the vote.
"We just recognize what it always said, but what previous generations were too blinkered to understand!"
Well, it won't be long before the Republicans have replaced all your judges that saw the light.
Posted by: Chad Peterson on February 27, 2004 06:24 AM