The party line
So Hillary Clinton was on “Face the Nation” this morning, spouting the party line that she was for civil unions but against gay marriage. When John Roberts asked her why she was against gay marriage, all she could come up with was “That’s an idea that’s not supported by a lot of Americans” or some such. Well, so was desegregation, Hillary. Did that make it the wrong thing to do? Was it not worth doing because it was politically dangerous?
In order to help Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle, Howard Dean and others deal with this issue, I’ve written up a little sample rhetoric on gay marriage for them to use. They don’t even have to credit me! It’s for the greater good, I say. Here it is:
I think what’s important here, Tim, is to understand the difference between civil and religious marriage. Religious marriage is a sacrament, and I don’t believe the government has any business telling any religion who they can and cannot marry. But civil marriage is a legal contract that’s enforced by the state, and that confers rights on the citizens that enter into that contract. I believe Americans are a fundamentally fair people. And this is about fairness – allowing people who want to enter into committed relationships, relationships that strengthen the society, to get the rights conferred by civil marriage.
There’s a lot of talk about civil unions these days – trying to create a system alongside civil marriage that would involve the same rights. But why create a new system, a new bureaucracy, to try to simulate something already in place? Is that fair? I don’t think it is. “Separate but equal” didn’t work in the civil rights era, and it doesn’t work here. I know there are a lot of Americans who are uncomfortable with homosexuality. But that unease shouldn’t be enough reason to deny basic rights to citizens of the United States of America.
Not that they’ll ever in a million years use this sort of argument. But they should. And if it only took me five minutes to come up with, I bet their high-priced speechwriters and message-makers could do an even better job. I’d like to see them at least try.