Same-sex marriage update

The Republicans are going to try to make the issue a political lighting rod again, just in time for this year's midterm elections, even though Bush didn't really make a big deal about it in his State of the Union speech last week (probably because HE isn't up for re-election this year...)

From Raw Story:

The Marriage Protection Amendment was originally introduced by Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) in 2003, and leveraged as a wedge issue by the GOP during the 2004 election cycle as a way of mobilizing its base to vote against same-sex marriage.

Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO), a co-sponsor of the 2005 joint resolution, "believes that a constitutional amendment is the best way to make it crystal clear that marriage is between a man and a woman."

Although the primary concerns of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered (GLBT) community are equal rights and protection under the law, including visitation, property and child custody rights, the GOP has successfully framed the legislation as a religious argument rather than a legal issue in order to fire up their base and rally them to the voting booths.

Thankfully, it doesn't look like the GOP has the numbers to pass the amendment in the Senate or the House this year either (and I say thankfully because I am sure that it would be approved by at least the 38 states needed in order to be added to the US Constitution, especially considering almost 20 have already amended their own state constitutions.)

Meanwhile, in our northern neighbor's latest elections, the right has won the majority of the vote (but not a full majority of seats in the Parliament, forcing them to have to govern by forming a coalition) and although things aren't as rosy as they were with a leftist government, it doesn't seem like Stephen Harper, the new Prime Minister, will be able to roll back gay marriage (he had promised during his campaign that he'd revisit the issue if elected.)

From Yahoo! News:

During the campaign, Harper pledged to revisit the issue of same-sex marriage, which was legalized last summer by Parliament in a 158-133 vote. The vote was somewhat symbolic, given that the nation's largest provinces had already legalized same-sex marriage by court order, guaranteeing marriage equality for the large majority of the Canadian population. Likewise, a second vote on same-sex marriage would be similarly overshadowed by the existing court decisions, which may not be overturned by Parliament.

If a new vote on marriage were to reverse the law, the stage would be set for a definitive ruling by the Canadian Supreme Court -- which is widely expected to uphold gay equality. A victory before the high court in this context would simply serve to restore marriage rights to the small fraction of the country that is not covered by a provincial court decision. An unlikely loss could roll back same-sex marriage.

Fortunately, polls suggest that even the conservatives consider the issue "settled, and should remain so," and 66% of those who voted for Harper oppose a second parliamentary vote on it. In any case, it looks like a second vote would reaffirm gays' marriage rights, albeit by a narrower margin.

A number of analysts speculate that Harper is hoping for just that result, an outcome that would allow him to fulfill his campaign pledge without ushering in a period of confusion and triggering a distracting constitutional case. Near the end of his campaign, Harper positioned himself toward the center and downplayed the issue of gay marriage, calling it a low priority.

So, it looks like Harper took a page from Bush's book, using gay marriage as a wedge issue during his campaign to draw supporters to the polls, even though he had no real intention to roll back same-sex marriage (probably because he knew he didn't have the nation's support to do so.)

It worked for both. Let's just hope they don't actually set out to do what they promised.