Prometheus 6

Quote of note:

Americans should realize that when politicians talk about activist judges or states' rights, they shouldn't be taken too seriously. They don't really care about that stuff. They just think no one will vote for them if they speak their minds.

LOS ANGELES

Neither Democrats nor Republicans have distinguished themselves in the debate over gay marriage. Politicians of both parties — led by President Bush, with his proposed amendment banning gay marriage — have avoided the main issue and sought refuge in the abstractions of the Constitution. Instead of asking what kind of society we want, they argue about what our structure of government can permit.
Politicians generally like a constitutional discussion because it allows them a way to avoid controversial topics by reframing them in terms of the two organizing principles of our system of government: separation of powers and federalism.

First, consider the Republicans. They have a simple message: gay marriage is all about "judicial activism" — that is, judges who overstep their bounds. A February report from the Senate Republican Policy Committee is representative of the strategy. Called "Judicial Activism Forces Same-Sex Marriage on Nation," it uses the title phrase five times. (Memo to Republicans: the mayor of San Francisco is not a judge.)

…Whether or not you agree — and Republicans themselves didn't seem to mind judicial activism when it delivered the presidency to George W. Bush — Republicans have managed to redirect the conversation. Their rhetoric is a way for Republicans to run to the center. They can appease their conservative base by opposing gay marriage, but their reasons for doing so will not offend more moderate Republicans.

The Democrats aren't much better. They too have a simple message: gay marriage is all about states' rights. John Kerry, for example, has said that "the issue of marriage should be left to the states."

…Whether or not you agree — and Democrats themselves have long favored the use of federal power to guarantee civil rights, even in family law, for African-Americans — Democrats have succeeded in shifting the debate. Their rhetoric allows them to claim the center: they can placate their liberal base by not opposing gay marriage, but by leaving it to the states they don't risk alienating more moderate Democrats.

It should not be surprising that the controversy over gay marriage has turned into a debate about the structural principles in the Constitution. This is how slavery was debated for America's first 100 years, and the rights of African-Americans and women were discussed in these terms for the next hundred.