To be honest, as I finished up my latest NRO piece between fixing breakfasts and changing diapers, I wondered whether the mini-controversy over President Bush and the Federal Marriage Amendment was already fading. Well, the Washington Post apparently believes that it isn't (or maybe that it shouldn't).
My fellow Anchor Rising contributor Marc Comtois emailed me today that he'll be curious to see how my thoughts play with conservatives preferring a different approach. First, I'd suggest that it would be extremely detrimental for infighting about strategy to be overemphasized within the movement to protect marriage. That said, a comment from Tom Minnery, public policy VP for Focus on the Family, speaks to the essential disagreement:
"The president is willing to spend his political capital on Social Security reform, but the nation is greatly conflicted on that issue," said Minnery... "The nation is united on marriage. The president's leadership is desperately needed."
It seems to me that we most need leadership where there is a need for action but no consensus where the President is going to take hits for making a decision in any direction. Minnery mentions Social Security; I would highlight areas more closely related to the marriage debate, such as changing the character of the judiciary. I hope we can all agree that it is more important for the definition of marriage to be preserved than for it to be preserved explicitly. (Of course, making noise now, as many conservatives are doing, can only help to ensure that the President's judicial appointments aren't woefully disappointing.)
Now, having touched on strategic differences, perhaps I can bring us all around to mutual head-shaking at the other side by offering this instance of a particularly annoying manifestation of media bias at the WaPo (emphasis added):
The president is sensitive to the concerns of social conservatives and has tried to reassure them over the past two days that he remains as committed as ever to outlawing same-sex marriage, according to White House officials.
Yeah... I'm sure that's how those White House officials put it. Outlawing something that has never been legal and that DOMA already explicitly forbids at the federal level.
Posted by Justin Katz at January 19, 2005 5:38 PM"It seems to me that we most need leadership where there is a need for action but no consensus — where the President is going to take hits for making a decision in any direction."
Exactly. Thanks for the plug btw!
Posted by: Marc Comtois at January 20, 2005 8:55 AMDon't disagree; but there is also a need for leadership when there is a need for action even if there is consensus. Particularly when the consensus is being lorded over by those who go against it.
Posted by: c matt at January 20, 2005 2:59 PM
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |