by the Way . . .

You have to hand it to President Bush on this gay marriage thing. This is one of the most difficult political calculations to come down the pike. The upcoming election looks tough, and the Dems are all going to be talking about Iraq, as if there weren’t any important moral issues in the world. So what amendment to the Constitution do you go with? Gay marriage or flag burning? And when?

Contrary to popular belief, it really isn’t too likely that your base is going to roll over and vote for Kennedy or other lib symps. What you have to worry about is how the issue will play with the great unwashed. And nobody really knows at this point. If the issue is a goody, you would want to trot it out closer to the election, but if it is a loser, best now so there is plenty of time for people to forget it and to shift to your flag burning issue. It is weaker, sure, due to the shortage of hippies, but safer than global warming, with all those polar bear huggers out there.

So, smart play, a ban on gay marriage has been trotted to the Senate first to vote on, conserving the House for later. Well, if you want to be persnickety, the Senate actually voted to shut off debate, well, actually the vote fell short of that required to shut off debate, but the expression of opinion effectively killed the issue for the year. Now it goes to the polls and focus groups to see what they think of Bush's valiant effort to save marriage. If it plays in Peoria, and if it can make it in New York, it can make it anywhere. If not, the House goes on the flag burning issue.

Hey, you say, “there is a lot more to this gay marriage thing than political calculation, what about all guys walking around holding hands?” You really need to think this through. You see all those young heterosexual couples walking around holding hands? You think any of them are married? Let’s get logical. If what you really object to is gay sex, and prefer not to mind your own business, you really ought to be in favor of gay marriage.

Well, you say, “what about all those guys that will get the spouse benefits from companies where the other guy works.” Try to keep up! Corporations are well along in phasing out most spousal benefits anyway. About the only thing supporting it is the fact that most CEO’s wives don’t work and therefore need the coverage. But if they have to they can afford to reach in their own pocket, so this is not absolute. A whole bunch of same sex sign-ups would provide a good cover for eliminating spouse benefits altogether. This is another non-issue. So what is your problem?

OK, you say, “but what about the threat to the sanctity of marriage? And to my marriage? You have to pass laws to protect the institution. Look at bigamy? We go after those Mormons who marry a bunch of people. You can’t just let people do as they please.” Again, really not an issue. You think that if you just left the Mormons alone all of a sudden all the non-Mormons would be adding a bunch of wives? How many mothers-in-law do you want? How many different places can you go on Christmas? That probably explains why the Mormons often marry sisters. But you think the supply is unlimited?

Don’t get me wrong, I am not opposed to trying things out in focus groups or polls. I just think the flag burning is a better issue, hippies or no.