Senatorial Same-Sex Marriage Dog Act Disappoints Religious Conservatives
Published June 08, 2006
While I find Christian dominionism to be as dreadful a notion as "white power," (both ideologies promote the idea that one group of people is somehow superior and entitled to hold a higher status and greater authority than the people whom it perceives as their inferiors) I cannot help but admire religious conservatives' dedication to their causes and their ability to motivate themselves into action.
The religious right is one of the most powerful of America's many and varied political movements and voting blocs because, while they make up just a little less than 10% of the population, nearly all of them vote.
What other group can get the executive and legislative branches of our government to sit up and beg, jump through hoops, and wag their tails in anticipation of a reward by simply threatening to stay home on Election Day 2006?
This week, our Senate wasted its time and energy debating the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have prohibited states from recognizing same-sex marriages, knowing that it had no chance whatsoever of passing.
President George W. Bush and our Senators performed a dog act just to placate religious conservatives who felt that their special interest in "protecting" the institution of marriage from gay and lesbian people who wish to enter into it had been ignored in favor of issues they deem less important such as the war in Iraq, the immigration controversy, the unstable price of gasoline, and spiraling federal spending.
A Predictable Ending
As anticipated by every pundit and politician possessed of a clue (including the amendment's supporters and sponsors), the FMA was soundly rejected by the Senate, who voted 49-48, on Wednesday, June 7, to limit debate and bring an up-or-down vote, which was 11 fewer than the 60 required, effectively killing the measure in the Senate for this year. The House of Representatives is expected to consider its own version of the FMA later this summer.
With the gain of four Republican seats since the FMA last came up for a vote, in 2004, proponents of the amendment had anticipated at least a 51-vote majority in the 100-member Senate. The 49 votes to keep the amendment alive were one more than the measure had previously received.
- Senatorial Same-Sex Marriage Dog Act Disappoints Religious Conservatives
- Published: June 08, 2006
- Type: Opinion
- Section: Politics
- Filed Under: Culture: Family and Relationships, Culture: Religion, Politics: Elections and Candidates, Politics: Policy, Politics: U.S.
- Writer: Margaret Romao Toigo
- Margaret Romao Toigo's BC Writer page
- Margaret Romao Toigo's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
- RSS Feeds
- All RSS Feeds (240+)
Comments on this article
BC articles by Margaret Romao Toigo
Culture: Family and Relationships
Culture: Religion
Politics: Elections and Candidates
Politics: Policy
Politics: U.S.
All Politics Articles
Margaret Romao Toigo's personal weblog
All Opinion articles
All BC articles
All BC Comments
Comments
Americablog did a post about the religious leaders who were hiding behind the cameras during the President's speech. It was definitely all about pandering to that 10% of fundies who vote.
I have to say that Democracy today definitely isn't what I was taught it is, when I was young.
I thought Democracy was about the voice of the People in conjunction with civil liberties and rights for all.
Instead, Democracy today is the most unpopular leader in the history of the country going against the wishes of the majority, who want the Constitution left alone.
So American Democracy today is about somebody Americans DON'T want to lead them, putting forth amendments, foreign policies and such, that Americans DON'T want in place, to satisfy a small group of elite bigots who do NOT represent American values.
Crazy times.
Well, Future Geek, the reason why that particular minority is so powerful is because it is so highly motivated and almost 100% of it votes. They got the Senate to perform circus tricks for two days just by threatening to stay home on Election Day!
The religious right acts as if they have never even heard of the concept of voter apathy and their substantial influence upon our politics -- but not necessarily actual policy -- is going to be around until more of us folks who object to their brand of puritanical, dominionist authoritarianism stop complaining about them and start studying their strategies and tactics, following their fine example of political activism, and voting.
Voter turnout in the land of the free and the home of the brave is pathetic! About half of Americans who are eligible to vote, don't.
How many times have you heard the excuses that it doesn't really matter because our votes don't actually count in the Electoral College, that elections are "rigged" anyway, that all of the candidates appear to be the same variety of crooks and liars dressed in different colors, and/or that it's too much work to stay informed amidst the foggy stench of the spin doctors' bovine excrement?
Amazingly, some of the people who make such excuses will also complain very loudly about the state of our nation and speak as if voter apathy is a form of political protest!
We each have three people representing our interests in the Congress, two Senators and one Representative, and fewer than 25% of us can name all three, and even fewer actually take the time to let those good people know what's on their minds.
Sure, there are a few "bad apples," such is the nature of politics, but most of them really do care about the interests of their constituents and they work very hard to those ends, according to the feedback they receive. And the culture warriors of the religious right do everything they can to make sure that they are heard, loudly and clearly.
M,
I know what you are saying about voting. I managed a Get Out the Vote team in Minneapolis during the 2004 election.
I still maintain that there is more to their disproportionate power than simple voting... they are excellent at motivating their base to vote because of their wealth and their aggressive promotion of their agenda. Preachers give political sermons from the pulpit, Christian radio networks buy up radio frequencies and sit on them so no one else can use them, etc.
Have you heard about Justice Sunday? You might be interested in that.
Most of the religious right are actually far from being wealthy and do not realize that they often vote against their own economic interests when they base their votes purely upon certain social issues.
The media and the pulpits are not big factors beyond "get out the vote" campaigns as Christian radio preaches to its own choir, not the undecided voters. And the same is true of clergy who sermonize before the already-converted.
The power is the result of the religious right's votes being combined with those of constituencies whose economic priorities are served by the same politicians who campaign on the religious right's favored social issues.
I have heard of "Justice Sunday," as well as "Marriage Protection Sunday." Again, this was about preaching to the already-converted, a motivational speech to bring them to action.
Would it were that other movements and voting blocs were as galvanized as the religious right. Perhaps there is hope to be found in the emerging religious left, whose numbers are equal to, or possibly even greater than, those of the religious right.
Are you republican?
Is today your wedding anniversary?
GUESS WHAT????
Saturday June 10th is the third anniversary of legalized Gay marraige in Canada! No wonder we have so many illegal immigrants from there!
Ahhhhh it warms my heart when people suck up to me!!!!
Who is Fitzgerald Green and why would anyone listen to his insulting drivel? If that's the most intelligent comment he should make, perhaps he should refrain from commenting to avoid bringing ridicule upon himself.
In Jamesons Veritas
can't you people ever get it through your head that moral conflicts between people are much more than each one thinking they are superior to the next?
Bigotry by any other name still smells like shit.
But isn't that exactly what 'morals' is? An opportunity to exert power over other peoples behaviour?
My point, how does a gay couple effect anyone's life by their own. Moral outrage is just a thinly vailed excuse to publically hate, and/or attack someone that hasn't done anyone harm.
Of course that's only my opinion...


Margaret Romao Toigo is a retired stripper, beauty school dropout, and wannabe intellectual who dabbles in a wide variety of fleeting endeavors and life-long obsessions. Although Ms. Toigo is not a real writer, she nonetheless has her very own web site: 







Margaret,
Good article.
You know, it is this unwarranted power and influence that gets me so worked up when I hear Christian radio distorting science. You might dismiss them as the far right wing, a minority - but they are a very powerful minority.