February 01, 2005

Same-Sex vs. Pro-Life Amendment

Since Andrew Sullivan is going on a weblog hiatus to write a book he'll soon be off the TAM blogroll--not that I've read much of him in the last year. He askes a question brought up by Jon Rauch.

The Senate Republicans have vowed to push their anti-gay marriage amendment, even though it won't stand a chance of getting the necessary 67 votes. The point is political and rhetorical. They are trying to build momentum, raise money, and keep the cause of banning same-sex unions alive. So why not push an anti-abortion amendment instead? They have one such amendment on hand. Both proposed amendments are allegedly against judicial meddling. Both will fail. But one deals with a much graver issue, by the religious right's reckoning - an immense loss of human life, rather than the grave evil of two human beings committing to one another for life. So why this priority? Surely, abortion is a more important matter than same-sex marriage - even for the religious right. Or is it?

I would think that Rauch, who has read lots of Mancur Olson, and Sullivan who had a Ph.D. in political science would see the politics of this action. There already is a pro-life advocacy industry. There's National Right to Life, Pro-Life Action League, the outrageous Operation Rescue, and a host of other groups. Over 30 years of Supreme Court-sanctioned abortion have given pro-lifers plenty of time to build a base of financial supporters and volunteers. Same-sex marriage is a very recent issue. The infrastructure to fight it is still unformed. A push for a same-sex constitutional amendment over a pro-life amendment is a tool to form that opposition. So while neither amendment has a chance of passing the Senate the same-sex marriage one would send a stronger message by rallying the masses.

"Why not an Anti-Abortion Amendment?"