Prominent social conservatives may decide to back Fred
Thompson’s campaign for the 2008 Republican presidential
nomination. Or they may not. But they ought to think twice before
basing their decision solely on the federal marriage amendment.
Last week, the Politico reported
that “Thompson’s stance on gay marriage” is “likely to deny him any
unified backing” from the religious conservative organizations that
comprise the Arlington Group. While not all group members share
this assessment, both Tony Perkins and Paul Weyrich were quoted
expressing concern that Thompson might be too soft on protecting
marriage.
Most religious conservatives support a constitutional amendment
that would prevent states or the federal government from defining
marriage as anything other than a union between a man and a woman.
Thompson prefers an amendment that would prevent state or federal
judges from imposing same-sex nuptials on an unwilling public,
focusing on judicial activism rather than the definition of
marriage.
Thompson believes that his preferred amendment would effectively
address the concerns of religious conservatives while remaining
more consistent with federalism. His critics on the right believe
his is a procedural approach that understates the importance of
traditional marriage and undermines the social conservative
consensus in favor of a cleaner amendment.
A fascinating debate until one considers the following: neither
amendment is likely to pass. When Republicans held the Senate by a
10-seat margin, the federal marriage amendment was rejected by a
vote of 49 to 48. Getting to two-thirds, or even a simple majority,
in a Democratic Congress is virtually impossible.
This has been the case with past conservative constitutional
amendments. The human life amendment, the number-one priority of
pro-life activists during the Reagan era, never got more than 49
votes in the Senate — 18 short of the required two-thirds
majority. At the height of conservative concern about the deficit
in the 1990s, the balanced budget amendment failed. Amendments
restoring school prayer, banning flag burning, and ending forced
busing have similarly gone nowhere.
At most, measures like the federal marriage amendment serve as
litmus tests by which social conservatives judge the intensity of a
Republican presidential candidate’s commitment to their issues. If
Thompson were as strongly opposed to gay marriage as James Dobson,
the reasoning goes, he would support the same constitutional
amendment.
Leaving aside whether the best recourse to every
constitutionally dubious court decision is a revision of the
Constitution, this tactic can just as easily give candidates a
pass. Instead of actually doing something about marriage or
abortion or any of the other social issues that engage the
religious right’s passions, politicians can endorse amendments they
know will never clear a single chamber of Congress, let alone be
ratified.
Social conservatives were energized by defeating the Equal
Rights Amendment. But they have practically nothing to show for the
constitutional amendments they have supported over the last three
decades. That sad track record will continue if religious
conservative groups decide it is more important to promote failed
amendments than avoid a presidential contest between two social
liberals.
If the religious right is going to be in the litmus tests
business, there are more productive demands that could be made of
the Republican candidates. The most obvious would pertain to
judges, which is why everyone from Rudy Giuliani to Ron Paul is
promising to appoint strict constructionists to the federal
courts.
Or they could insist that the next president and Congress try to
remove same-sex marriage and other social issues from the
jurisdiction of the federal courts altogether, as authorized by
Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. All it would take is a
simple majority vote in both chambers and the president’s
signature. Unlike the federal marriage amendment, a
jurisdiction-stripping bill intended to bolster the 1996 Defense of
Marriage Act actually passed the House last year with the support
of the Bush administration.
But at a time when social conservative influence is widely
thought to be on the wane, it is unwise to waste political capital
on dueling amendments with little prospect for ratification in the
near future. Religious conservatives already face tough choices in
next year’s presidential race. This fight merely makes those
choices more difficult.
