Re: FMA

I’d like to kick off my first post by congratulating Luther Strange on his strong lead over George Wallace Jr. going into the primary runoff for the Republican candidate for Lt. Governor. Also, I would like to note with pride that the more sensible elements of Alabama voted Judge Roy Moore out of the race by a sound margin.

Ah, now on to larger issues. I take a slightly different stance on the political benefits of refocusing on the FMA. Kevin asks “why put aside an issue like immigration that the base is clamoring for to pull out this piece of garbage?” I would respond that gay marriage is an issue on which the base and the administration can easily agree. Bush, thankfully, appears to be quite devoted to his more moderate stance on immigration, which has led to his dismal approval rating recently. In an act of political savvy, he decides to sidestep and focus on an issue where he knows his base will support him. This allows him to quietly pursue his center-right policy on immigration while the more radical elements of each party bash their heads together over an amendment that proves that Bush is still in touch with his constituents. To be quite honest, I prefer this line of action, considering the amendment’s likelihood of failure and the myriad negative effects of a far right immigration policy.

Of course, this amendment is truly a piece of garbage. In fact, why is the government in the business of marriage at all? It seems silly that a personal, emotional, often religious commitment between two people should be codified and regulated by the government especially the federal government. Since there are important legal distinctions to be made for married couples, I would advocate an entirely separate contract for married people to fill out once they commit to one another. This policy would be fair towards all couples and leave the emotional and religious connotations of the commitment contract at the door, a welcome step in any political arrangement. I believe that abolishing marriage as a legal institution and setting up a system of civil unions for all committed couples would provide the government with a level-headedness that is sorely lacking on this issue. What we have here is a semantic debate, which is a waste of everyone’s time and energy and will accomplish little in terms of shaping American culture, whether you advocate gay marriage or abhor it.

Thanks to Kevin for bringing up some interesting points, and welcome to the Tammany Hall Report. I hope everyone enjoys it.