Back of a Napkin

SPECIAL RULES

I didn't get enough sleep last night. About ten minutes before I would normally have gone to bed, I accidentally flipped to C-SPAN (I was trying to tune into Seinfeld and reversed the digits) and Brad and I found ourselves watching a meeting of the House Rules Committee. Oddly enough, they were discussing bringing the Federal Marriage Amendment, which they're now calling the "Marriage Protection Amendment," to the floor for consideration. And who else would chair such a proceeding but that good old queen, David Dreier?

It was fun to watch his palpable discomfort; he's recently been outed and he must realize how ludicrous he looks right now, helping move along a piece of political demagoguery intended to withold rights from he and his chief of staff/lover. Oh, and that lime green tie? Bad fashion AND dead giveaway, Davey.

There are a few roadblocks, though, to this amendment's passage. For one thing, no one really knows what this means: "Marriage in the United States shall consist solely of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman." As Congressman James McGovern of Massachusetts pointed out, the amendment's sponsors can't tell anyone what the amendment would actually do. Does "legal incidents thereof" mean that companies couldn't offer domestic partner benefits? Does it allow civil unions, or does it make them impossible? Can state legislatures create a separate designation for gay partnerships, or would that be a misconstruance of their constitution? There was broad agreement that the amendment, as written, makes no sense. John Hostettler, a Republican from Indiana, argued for several amendments to the amendment to make it clear that civil unions and domestic partnerships are verboten. Jerrold Nadler, a Democrat from New York, opposed the amendment and argued that it ought to be sent to the judiciary committee before being considered to work out what it really means and to reconcile the first and second sentences, which can be read as contradicting one another. Because there's no transcript of the hearing, I can't offer a direct quote, but Nadler basically said, If this were a serious piece of legislation with any chance of passing and not a piece of political demagoguery designed to influence the election, we'd have hearings about the meaning of it, find out what impact it would have, and carefully consider any changes in the judiciary committee's subcommittee. Translation: We shouldn't be thinking of rewriting the Constitution on the back of a napkin.

Indeed, the bill's sponsor, Marilyn Musgrave, the Colorado Republican who I described to Brad as "that bitch from hell," refused to comment on what the amendment might do. Reverting to her designated Republican role of talking points whore, she just kept saying marriage needed to be protected from four judges in Massachusetts. Protected from what? Same answer. How would what the judges had done impact her marriage? Same answer. Was Ms. Musgrave aware that the people of Massachusetts had the option of undoing what the court had done if they disagreed? Same answer. Wasn't the Republican party the party of states' rights? Same answer. Nothing can rattle these people from their talking points. I turned to Brad and said, "This is what proves that reason and rational thought are no longer the foundations of our system. No one answers serious questions anymore."

The committee reported the bill to the full House, 6-2. Like I said: Reason? Rational thought? Reverence for the fact that we're talking about the Constitution and yet no one even knows what the amendment means? Not as important as scoring potential points in an election. A brave Democrat would use this against the Republicans. McGovern and Nadler, for instance, struck me as quite bold. Even Martin Frost, a Texas Democrat, seemed brave--imagine a Texan being one of two votes against a gay-bashing amendment! It's a shame I don't see the same boldness in John Kerry.