Political calculation
Do Congressional conservatives have the mettle to challenge President Obama over the issue of gay marriage? The issue of civil rights for homosexuals has been a contentious issue in recent years, and one that has proven successful for politicians appealing to conservative values. And as the president's critics have relied so far on divisive appeals to emotion in lieu of more substantial discussion of issues, the current attempt by the City Council of Washington, D.C. to grant same-sex couples the right to marry provides conservatives with an excellent opportunity to seize the xenophobic attack without invoking themes of race, ethnicity, or religion.
City Council members introduced legislation Tuesday to allow same-sex marriage here. If it passes, as expected, Washington would be the first city below the Mason-Dixon line to allow such unions. The city’s bill is expected to become law by December.
But the measure is likely to draw harsh criticism from Congressional Republicans and conservative Democrats, many of whom face mid-term elections next year, and they could act to overturn it.
After Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, who supports the measure, signs it, Congress has 30 days to enact a joint resolution of disapproval. President Obama would have to sign that resolution for the city law to be blocked.
But even if, as most gay rights advocates predict, such a resolution is not passed, members of Congress could still try to attach a rider to another piece of legislation blocking same-sex marriage here.
“Opposition by some in the House already has been announced,” said Eleanor Holmes Norton, the city’s delegate to the House, adding that she did not believe the opposition would be enough to block the city’s measure.
“Opposition to civil rights is not new,” she said. “We should approach the rights of gay couples and families with the same resolution and results as we had for others who have sought their human rights in Congress and in the District.”
Same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and Vermont. In May, Washington passed legislation to recognize such unions from other jurisdictions, and Congress did not try to override that decision.
(Urbina)
The issue puts the Democratic Congressional caucus in a difficult situation. With many issues, the moderate core of the party and its few genuine liberals have found themselves stymied by conservative Blue Dogs—nominal Democrats who advocate Republican political themes—in issues ranging from the War on Terror to health care reform.
The question of how hard to fight against a resolution of disapproval is a taxing one. Liberal Democrats, such as Reps. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio and Jim McDermott of Washington will find an easy basic answer. These opponents of the Iraqi Bush Adventure and other measures related to the War on Terror have survived multiple re-election bids in the intervening years. Their seats are as safe as they come in Congressional parlance, especially
"Baghdad" Jim's. For such legislators, fighting any attempt to quash Washington, D.C.'s move to grant marital rights to homosexuals is the obvious move.
But moderate Democrats have played more and more conservative on large issues in recent years, to the point that one might think Sen. Dianne Feinstein—who
dismisses criticism from the political left—is actually a Republican. And this doesn't even begin to account for the Blue Dog faction that helped push through the Bush administration's extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to spy on American citizens, or balked at the prospect of a public health care option.
If we combine the GOP minority in the Senate with the Blue Dogs, there is definitely enough support there to pass a resolution of disapproval against gay marriage in Washington, D.C. The Democratic Blue Dog Coalition in the House boasts some 53 members, equaling a potential swing of 106 votes to the conservative bloc, which is enough to overcome the general Democratic majority (256-177).
This, of course, presumes bloc voting in the GOP and among the various factions of the Democrats, which leaves a twenty-seven vote margin to the conservative advantage (230-203).
Meanwhile, on the executive front, liberal supporters of the Democratic Party have expressed frustration with what they perceive as President Obama's mixed signals on the issue. He expressed lukewarm support for gay marriage during the campaign, invited well-known bigot Rick Warren, pastor of the
Saddleback Church to give the convocation at his inauguration, maintaining the prior administration's position in related court briefs, and eventually reiterating his support after the LGBT community actually began demonstrating and threatening to withhold future support for his presidency. Indeed, the president is
preparing to address the Human Rights Campaign at its 13th Annual National Dinner this Saturday, in advance of the National Equality March, despite a planned picket against his participation by the Gay Liberation Network and Queer Liberation.
The GOP, then, should start some wheeling and dealing. Do what it takes to bring the Blue Dogs into the fold. Get that resolution of disapproval passed; put it on the president's desk. Make Obama either sign the resolution or say, "Override me." And in the case of the latter, even if D.C. Congressional Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton and Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz's predictions of insufficient support for the resolution are correct, the GOP does not walk away empty-handed. For too long, critics of the president have allowed racist paranoia to dominate their opposition. There is still a gamble worth taking on this issue, as it would allow conservative opponents to continue casting Obama as some sort of "other", but about something he
does—something he
chooses—as opposed to what he is or is not by nature. People are uncomfortable admitting that they are exploiting his ethnicity, spurious rumors about his birth, or his secret worship of Allah; but if Obama chooses to stand with homosexuals, Republicans gain traction among "middle Americans".
Additionally, pushing this fight would have the benefit of putting Blue Dogs in the awkward position of demanding that they choose between voters and the president; after all, in conservative terms, the scoreboard seems to be what matters. Blue Dogs who oppose the resolution must answer to the conservative districts where they won narrow victories, and those who support the resolution could find themselves at odds with the president, thus diminishing whatever appearance of genuine Congressional support people might imagine the president enjoys.
For once, the GOP finds itself in a no-lose situation. The gay fray
will come to an end, eventually, and that end
will reflect equal protection for homosexuals. If gay marriage in D.C. hastens the driving of judicial nails into this bastion of bigotry, all conservatives will have lost is time that would otherwise be spent denigrating themselves as religious nutters and paranoid bigots. On the eve of what otherwise appears a victory for gays, it is in fact conservatives who have the best
political hand.
On the citizens' front, there is, of course, the outcry that the measure should be put to the people, and while a vote in D.C. might actually succeed in blocking gay marriage, it would be a short-term victory that lacks the political benefits of further alienating President Obama from the traditionalist base that keeps conservative candidates afloat during election season, and in line the rest of the time.
____________________
Notes:
Urbina, Ian. "Gay Marriage Bill Introduced in D.C.". New York Times. October 6, 2009. NYTimes.com. October 6, 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/07/us/07marriage.html
Weinstein, Steve. "Obama Will Address HRC Dinner on Eve of March". The Edge. October 5, 2009. EdgeBoston.com. October 6, 2009. http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=&sc3=&id=97257
