A politics of exclusion

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."\nFifty-three potent words comprise the Federal Marriage Amendment, a punitive, unnecessary, mean-spirited concept which this week aims to become the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.\nIt's not just marriage that it aims to keep from homosexuals, either. It's "the legal incidents thereof." That crosses out civil unions and domestic partnerships, those friendly everything-but-the-M-word contracts that still remain popular alternatives among those opposed to actual gay marriage. \nBut it's also an attempt to circumvent the court system, which apparently can no longer be trusted with interpreting the Constitution. And it's an attempt to deny homosexuals dignity and legal protection. It's an annulment of federalism. It's a smack in the face of the 14th Amendment's promise of due process and of equal protection.\nAnd yet aiming, it seems, is all the FMA hopes to do. Supporters of the amendment in the Senate, where it's currently being debated, would love to pull off an upset win, but don't think they have the two-thirds -- 67 votes out of 100 -- needed to pass it. \nSo realism is not the issue. Why pursue something they know they have no chance to achieve? Because of politics. The vote on the FMA comes conveniently in an election year. It'll serve as an acrimonious scorecard for a social issue some see as a political wedge -- or at the very least, a political distraction.\n After all, the debate over the FMA and gay marriage in general has turned into a vile advocacy of exclusion, oblivious to any kindness, with culprits on the right and left.\n "Social conservatives are looking at this issue so we know who needs to be educated on this issue or removed if that is possible," said Tony Perkins, president of the conservative organization Family Research Council, to The New York Times last week.\nEducate, he says. Remove, he says. If you do not follow our edict, you must go. If you're a gay Republican, you're not welcome here. If you're a straight Republican and support gay rights, you're also not welcome here. You're not our style. Bye-bye. \nMeanwhile, on the other end of the spectrum, people are just as crazy. The Washington-based newspaper Roll Call reported last week that gay rights activists are threatening to out closeted gay and lesbian members of Congress and congressional staffers as part of their condemnation of the FMA. \nThey claim they want to expose the hypocrisy of anti-gay rights Congress members who are themselves gay. Instead of campaigning on conscience and common sense, they'd rather toss out a threat tantamount to the same despicable campaign of fear that closets many homosexuals.\nAfter they're outed, then what? Do you think they'll thank you for doing something for your crass political reasons they've always been afraid to do for their own personal reasons? \nThis is the wrong way to debate. This is what turns people off to the idea that government can be used as a tool for good. This is where moderates and independents have to reclaim their voices in this debate and stand firm on principles of pragmatism.\nPutting every senator on record isn't merely partisan politics. It's as much about pinning Democrats against the floor as it is about pushing wayward Republicans out of the tent. It's ultimately a dangerous crusade for exclusion.\nA general apathy surrounds the FMA. Many think that since it affects only a fraction of the population, and has little chance of passing, what's the big deal? \nThe big deal is that, for everyone, the FMA will be only the first of many lines drawn in the sand. This is where the unclimbable walls of partisanship are built. This time it's exclusion from the Republican Party. Next time it may be the Democratic Party. And sooner or later, if you don't believe what your party tells you, they'll casually elbow you out and not give you a second glance.