Chattanooga paper: Right-wing pandering on gay marriage

[warrens]

This probably says it better than I have seen it phrased elsewhere. A great editorial...

Be suspicious when a pandering politician talks about amending the United States Constitution to prevent so-called "activist judges" from fairly applying the equal protection of the law. And beware the implicit paradox: If the Constitution must be amended to prevent judges from equitably applying the law, is it judges, or the pandering politicians stricken by election year zeal, who are trying to pervert the law?

The Republican right wing has just looked at the calendar and their party's declining poll numbers and decided it's time to stir up a reliably divisive values debate to re-energize their base and get the public's mind off the rotten state of affairs -- the horrendous budget deficits, Iraq and the fraying Social Security and health care safety net; bungling on immigration, porous borders, energy prices, Homeland Security and unfair tax cuts. They can't let the election focus on those kinds of issues, so they're tossing out the red meat again.

In fact, the pandering politicians support not so much the rule of law or the Constitution as they seek the political benefit of excoriating the notion of gay marriage. Never mind the serious problems they're neglecting, or the transparency of the shell game they are openly playing on gay marriage.

The panderers well know they don't have the two-thirds majority in either the Senate or the House needed to approve the protection-of-marriage act and start the constitutional amendment process. Indeed, Republican leaders are well aware of -- and quietly happy about -- their low odds of approving the amendment measure. Most are surely glad its likely failure would guarantee another round of fruitless gay marriage debate in the 2008 presidential election.

Individual citizens, of course, will use their own personal values to decide the correctness of gay marriage. For some, it is simply anathema, both a moral and religious failing. For others, it's a private issue, one best left to the individuals involved. For still others, it's a fairness issue: what authority or right do objectors have to deny a privilege they enjoy to those not like them.

SNIP

http://www.tfponline.com/

(Note: I found this on Nexis; I searched the Times Free Press site but couldn't find their editorials...perhaps someone else can find it and post the link to the actual editorial...)

Edited to make subject clearer