Whatever one’s position on same-sex marriage, it is difficult to understand why the issue is suddenly so much more urgent than tax relief or job creation. In the wake of President Bush’s call for an amendment to the federal constitution, even reliable culture warrior Tom DeLay responded by saying "there is no particular reason for haste." For that matter, in the (highly unlikely) event that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of recognizing same-sex marriages, a state constitutional amendment would provide no more protection than the defense of marriage statute currently on our books. Aside from its symbolism, the proposal has no substance.
With his call for a constitutional amendment, George W. Bush is (pick one) standing up for morality/trying to distract voters from his dismal record. The Massachusetts Supreme Court decision on gay marriage is evidence of (pick one) equality before the law/judicial activism.
In California, San Francisco’s mayor is (pick one) scoring political points with his liberal constituency/standing up for equality. In Indiana, Republican members of the House of Representatives are (pick one) protecting the institution of marriage/more interested in furthering a political wedge issue than doing the people’s business.
And so it goes in America’s interminable culture wars.
In the Indiana legislature, it is hard not to sympathize with Pat Bauer, who is in a no-win situation: if he refuses to allow a vote, he is accused of being no better than the Republican lawmakers who started this farce by walking out; if he gives in, however, he is setting a dangerous precedent. For the same reason we don’t negotiate with terrorists—because it encourages further acts of terrorism—he really can’t cave in to House Republicans. Doing so would invite similar antics whenever they wanted to thwart the legislative majority.
Meanwhile, the Republicans insist that amending the Indiana constitution to prohibit gay marriage is the most important issue facing Indiana—more important than reform of the property tax system and tax relief for those hurt by recent reassessment, more important than bills funding optional full-day kindergarten, providing more affordable health insurance, or stimulating job growth—all of which seem destined to die as a result of the walkout.
Whatever one’s position on same-sex marriage, it is difficult to understand why the issue is suddenly so much more urgent than tax relief or job creation. In the wake of President Bush’s call for an amendment to the federal constitution, even reliable culture warrior Tom DeLay responded by saying “there is no particular reason for haste.” For that matter, in the (highly unlikely) event that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of recognizing same-sex marriages, a state constitutional amendment would provide no more “protection” than the ‘defense of marriage’ statute currently on our books. Aside from its symbolism, the proposal has no substance.
Ultimately, of course, the issue is not the propriety of same-sex marriage. It is the proper role of government in a society where people’s beliefs are shaped by very different religions and cultures. That doesn’t mean that legal recognition of gay marriage is an unimportant question: people of good will and different religious traditions can and do differ about the extent to which government in a free society should favor certain behaviors over others. But the very seriousness of the issue requires respectful deliberation rather than inflamed political rhetoric, considered behavior rather than theatrics. Nor does its importance justify neglect of pressing state business.
Culture warriors at the Indiana legislature risk alienating those on both sides of the marriage debate who understand that grandstanding subverts the democratic process and makes it more difficult for all of us to come together as Americans.