Senate Fails to Pass Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment

The cynicism of the American elected elite is broader than the Mississippi and deeper than a James Joyce novel. While the military is grinding away in an unpopular, badly planned and unnecessary war, while the national debt soars, while the schools are failing and while the infrastructure collapses around the ears of the vanishing middle-class, the Republican-led US Senate tried and failed to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages. Now, the social conservatives will be energized, they believe, and vote for the Republican ticket in November. They must think those people are morons.

The Kensington Review is socially liberal, indeed, comfortably radical about it. While disagreeing profoundly with many on the religious right about the wisdom, efficacy or desirability of social engineering on behalf of a vengeful God, this journal takes the arguments and passions of those people seriously. One should never underestimate the opposition, and not all conservatives are stupid (more often they are merely wrong, and no philosophical outlook is immune to error).

The respect does not appear to exist withing the current ruling party. Those who proudly called themselves the “Moral Majority” in days past have been taken for a ride the last six years. Wall Street has its tax cuts, and Halliburton has its no-bid contracts. However, the social conservatives have had a lot of talk from the Busheviks and almost no follow through. Only now that the president’s poll numbers are at Nixonian levels are Karl Rove’s minions addressing their demands.

What is particularly insulting to the SoCons is the attempt to amend the constitution knowing full well that the votes to end debate in the Senate weren’t there. Had the GOP succeeded in passing the amendment, it might actually represent “mission accomplished,” and no one turns out to vote for something that has been settled. The base doesn’t get energized over achievements but over perceived problems.

This is where the talk (and thus far it is little more than talk) about a third party candidate in 2008 gets interesting. Third party candidates don’t win. At best, they force one of the two existing parties to adopt some of its positions in future elections (Nixon brought the 1968 Wallace group into his 1972 coalition). The GOP can be outflanked on the right socially, since they have done so little for that constituency. Two candidates of the right against one candidate of the center (there is no credible left in America any more) means splitting the rightist vote in favor of a moderate. The gay marriage vote was an attempt to halt such talk. One doubts it has.

© Copyright 2006 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Fedora Linux.

Home