Littwin: What a perfect time for a distraction

By Mike Littwin, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published June 6, 2006 at midnight

Text size

More News Columns & Blogs

More stories »

It is the perfect time for the U.S. Senate, and our own Wayne Allard, to reintroduce the anti-gay-marriage amendment.

Because at no other time could the amendment, and possibly Allard, look more ridiculous.

It's the same old song and dance, but this time it's impossible to miss the tragedy lurking offstage.

If you haven't noticed, there's a war on. It's far away, and you may not know anyone fighting in it, but, trust me, there's a war on.

There's a war on that gets uglier by the day.

There's a war on that threatens our nation's very soul, especially if it turns out to be true that ordinary Marines - some on a third tour in Iraq, pushed to a murderous rage by the hideous death of a buddy - massacred 24 men, women and children at Haditha.

There's a war on - and what better time to debate the soul-searching issue of whether Jim could marry Jack or whether Janice could marry Jennifer and how that could bring down civilization as we know it today?

Gay marriage, despite what you've heard, threatens exactly no one. And yet, there was George W. Bush, who recently said that he found reports from Haditha "troubling," giving a speech Monday about a threat so compelling that it requires amending the U.S. Constitution.

You could tell, though, that Bush's heart wasn't in it - and not just because the amendment has absolutely no chance of passing. James Dobson and the James Dobsonites had forced Bush into this election-year ritual by threatening to stay home on Election Day. As threats go, Bush would rather get another letter from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

There's a Newsweek story quoting a Bush friend - a species, if you trust the polls, increasingly difficult to locate - saying "I don't think he gives a (bleep)" about this issue.

You think that was an approved leak? But, before you call Judy Miller, maybe the better question is this: Why should Bush give a bleep?

It is 2006, after all, and the whole issue was so 2004. Not only does Dick Cheney - who has a gay daughter - oppose the amendment, but Laura Bush went out of her way to say the issue shouldn't be politicized.

But there was her husband, politicizing away Monday. And everyone knew, even those favoring the amendment, that the brief speech was so much presidential pandering.

Here's a possible amendment for you - and one I'd vote for: In times of war, there should be a cap on the number of cultural wedge issues any one political party can exploit.

In the 2004 election, gay marriage was on the ballot in 13 states, in a Rovian attempt to make sure the religious right went to the polls. Some have suggested that the gay-marriage initiative in Ohio pushed Bush over the top.

I'm not so sure. But that was before Katrina, before the NSA phone-number collecting, before Vito Spatafore became a household name - at least in those households where people watch The Sopranos.

And yet, watch your Senate in action.

First, there will be the debate on the anti- gay-marriage amendment. Then we get that old staple - the anti-flag-burning amendment, newly endorsed by Hillary Clinton. At least there are gays who want to get married. You have a better chance of seeing someone marrying a horse than seeing someone burning a flag.

Of course the only wedge issue that really excites anyone right now is illegal immigration.

But as the National Guard troops head to the Mexican border, you might have noticed that the site of the recently discovered alleged terrorist plot was, uh, Canada.

Time for another wall? Do we have enough fencing? Maybe China can sell us some.

Meanwhile, the president pulled out his list of greatest hits, going after "activist" judges and, if that weren't enough, also "overreaching" judges. On the Senate floor, Wayne Allard chipped in with this: "Make no mistake about it, traditional marriage is under assault."

I'm not going to counter that argument with same old argument: my 35 years of unthreatened marriage or Britney Spears' 55-hour threat to all that makes matrimony holy. Instead, I'll go to my daughter, who lives in Massachusetts, at the epicenter of the gay- marriage debate. She lives there - with her rabbit. Her boyfriend lives down the block. This just in: They're all OK.

It's true that polls show at least a small majority of Americans still oppose gay marriage. But, according to an ABC News poll released Monday, only 42 percent favor the amendment.

And check the numbers in the 18-to-29 category. According to a Pew poll, that age group rejects the amendment by a 52-42 ratio.

States are rushing to pass anti-gay-marriage amendments. You can start your pool now as to what year they'll be rescinded.

In Colorado, we've made it more complicated for the voter. We may offer voters a four- way - four possible gay-marriage-related initiatives.

One is not unlike the amendment in the Senate - defining marriage as between one man and one woman. There's also a pro-civil- union initiative.

I wouldn't be surprised if both passed.

And then there are competing amendments: One would not allow the state to "create or recognize a legal status similar to marriage." That competes with an amendment that would say a civil union between members of the same sex "is not similar to marriage."

It's easy to get confused. I believe that's the point, just as the point of the Bush speech was to create what we call a diversion.

But, even as diversion, Monday's little drama didn't work. More like theater of the absurd.

littwinm@rockymountainnews.com

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News