The proposed Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage is starting to look like another of George W. Bush’s announcements that we’re going to the moon, or Mars. The right-wing religious portion of the American public got its knickers twisted, so Mr. Bush read an insincere statement into the tee vee cameras, walked away and that was that. A little dog-and-pony show to distract the base into thinking the president actually gives a rip. It will be interesting to see how the religious rights reacts to the offhand indifference the rest of us have been subjected to for three years.
For a while, it seemed like gay marriage was a Republican dream come true. (There’s a sentence you don’t see every day.) It was to have been a Republican’s dream because as the Democrats were choosing a Massachusetts senator as their presidential nominee, judges in the Bay State were rendering opinions in favor of gay marriage, exactly the cudgel the GOP thought could be used to beat the Dems.
Then the prairie fire started and mayors all over the country started marrying gay and lesbian couples. Whether motivated by sterling moral conviction or brilliant political insight, the maneuver turned out to be both. If some Americans are afraid of gay marriage, one reason is that they are unfamiliar with gay marriage. The only way to remove the unfamiliarity – and the fear – is to marry lesbians and gays. It’s working. Recent polls are already showing public sentiment shifting toward approval of gay marriage. An issue Republicans were hoping to use as a wedge in November may wind up hurting them with the important swing constituency of suburban women.
So while it looks like there won’t be any anti-gay marriage amendment, we should take a moment to reflect on another amendment unlikely to be added to the Constitution in the near future.
The Equal Rights Amendment, in its current form, was drafted in 1943 and reads: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex.” It is simple; it is straightforward; it is not part of the Constitution.
The Equal Rights Amendment, in its current or an earlier version, was introduced into each Congress beginning in 1923. In the early 1940s, both the Republican and Democratic Parties added support of the ERA to their national platforms.
In 1972, after a half-century of trying, Congress passed the Equal Rights Amendment. All that remained was for three-quarters – or 38 – of the states to ratify the amendment for inclusion in the Constitution. In the first year, 22 states ratified the ERA, eight in the second year, three in the third, one in the fourth and in 1977, Indiana became the 35th, and final, ratifying state. Unratified amendments lapse after seven years; the ERA was granted a three-year extension, but a resurgent conservative movement killed whatever momentum was left. In 1980, the Republican Party dropped support for the ERA from its platform; it has not reappeared there since. (Think about that, soccer moms, as you drive your daughters in the minivan.) The ERA was reintroduced to Congress in 1982 and in each successive Congress since, but one never hears about it any more.
One of the great notions of American society – canonized in our founding document – is that all people are equal before the law. That equality has always been more rhetorical than real. At first it only applied to property-owning men of European descent. Equality was later granted to all white men and only recently to men of other races and with still far too many loopholes and exceptions.
Today, the foes of gay marriage want to enshrine a principle of inequality in the Constitution, while an amendment guaranteeing equality for the majority of Americans has never been fully ratified.
Read it again: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” It’s not much to ask. It should be available to all.
On Account of Sex
The proposed Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage is starting to look like another of George W. Bush’s announcements that we’re going to the moon, or Mars. The right-wing religious portion of the American public got its knickers twisted, so Mr. Bush read an insincere statement into the tee vee cameras, walked away and that was that. A little dog-and-pony show to distract the base into thinking the president actually gives a rip. It will be interesting to see how the religious rights reacts to the offhand indifference the rest of us have been subjected to for three years.
For a while, it seemed like gay marriage was a Republican dream come true. (There’s a sentence you don’t see every day.) It was to have been a Republican’s dream because as the Democrats were choosing a Massachusetts senator as their presidential nominee, judges in the Bay State were rendering opinions in favor of gay marriage, exactly the cudgel the GOP thought could be used to beat the Dems.
Then the prairie fire started and mayors all over the country started marrying gay and lesbian couples. Whether motivated by sterling moral conviction or brilliant political insight, the maneuver turned out to be both. If some Americans are afraid of gay marriage, one reason is that they are unfamiliar with gay marriage. The only way to remove the unfamiliarity – and the fear – is to marry lesbians and gays. It’s working. Recent polls are already showing public sentiment shifting toward approval of gay marriage. An issue Republicans were hoping to use as a wedge in November may wind up hurting them with the important swing constituency of suburban women.
So while it looks like there won’t be any anti-gay marriage amendment, we should take a moment to reflect on another amendment unlikely to be added to the Constitution in the near future.
The Equal Rights Amendment, in its current form, was drafted in 1943 and reads: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex.” It is simple; it is straightforward; it is not part of the Constitution.
The Equal Rights Amendment, in its current or an earlier version, was introduced into each Congress beginning in 1923. In the early 1940s, both the Republican and Democratic Parties added support of the ERA to their national platforms.
In 1972, after a half-century of trying, Congress passed the Equal Rights Amendment. All that remained was for three-quarters – or 38 – of the states to ratify the amendment for inclusion in the Constitution. In the first year, 22 states ratified the ERA, eight in the second year, three in the third, one in the fourth and in 1977, Indiana became the 35th, and final, ratifying state. Unratified amendments lapse after seven years; the ERA was granted a three-year extension, but a resurgent conservative movement killed whatever momentum was left. In 1980, the Republican Party dropped support for the ERA from its platform; it has not reappeared there since. (Think about that, soccer moms, as you drive your daughters in the minivan.) The ERA was reintroduced to Congress in 1982 and in each successive Congress since, but one never hears about it any more.
One of the great notions of American society – canonized in our founding document – is that all people are equal before the law. That equality has always been more rhetorical than real. At first it only applied to property-owning men of European descent. Equality was later granted to all white men and only recently to men of other races and with still far too many loopholes and exceptions.
Today, the foes of gay marriage want to enshrine a principle of inequality in the Constitution, while an amendment guaranteeing equality for the majority of Americans has never been fully ratified.
Read it again: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” It’s not much to ask. It should be available to all.
(c) Mark Floegel, 2004