Ed Brayton has a post up on the sudden renewed interest in a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. As Ed and many others discussing this issue rightly point out, the measure has almost no chance of getting support from the required two-thirds of the Senate that it would need in order to pass. As such, it's clear that, just as during the 2004 elections, the Republicans are merely using the "gay scare" to beat the bushes and mobilize the homophobe crowd come election time by tapping into their intolerant outrage. Ed verbalizes these Republican tactics perfectly:

"You see, we tried. We tried to save marriage and protect the moral fabric of America, but those {insert one or more of the following here: liberals, activist judges, radical homosexuals, cultural elites, Hollywood degenerates, Godless heathens, etc} stopped us. All the more reason why you must vote for us again, so we can keep fighting the good fight for moral values, Moms and apple pie."

Ed also notes something that we've been saying for a while now — using this kind of bigotry for political gain has a very limited shelf life. It's identical to the racism inherent in the anti-integration movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Today, people look back on that and see quite clearly that the only reason that anyone really had to oppose integration was racist intolerance. The same thing will happen with the anti-gay movement. In thirty or forty years, everyone will look back and see quite clearly that allowing gays to marry — or more accurately, not stopping them, since they shouldn't need anyone's permission to marry — in no way harms heterosexual marriages. It will simply be obvious that those who opposed that right did so purely out of homophobic intolerance.

And even though Bush isn't up for re-election (we'd thank God for that, if we believed in God), he's doing his part to spew the party line for his cronies in the Senate. But as this clever monkey talk shows, he's all about tolerance:

"As this debate goes forward, we must remember that every American deserves to be treated with tolerance, respect and dignity," [Bush] said. "All of us have a duty to conduct this discussion with civility and decency toward one another, and all people deserve to have their voices heard."

So let's see if we have this right, Dubya. All people deserve to have their voices heard on this issue. Check. Then, after everyone has had their voice heard — the gay community, the civil libertarians, the religious nutbags, the inbred hillbillies, the Klan — after that fair and balanced debate, then the gays can just shut the fuck up and let the bigots fuck them over by stripping away their rights. Thank you so very much, Mr. President, for standing up for the civil liberties of all Americans.

But don't worry. Someday, just a generation or two down the road, George Bush, Bill Frist and all of the Republican "Good Old Boys" who are leveraging hatred and bigotry to further their own political agendas will be looked at by Americans — all Americans — as the homophobic bigots and hatemongers that they are. As tolerance replaces fear and anger, we will all come to look at these people the same way that we look at the racists of the 1950s and 1960s today. These politicians will be looked at with the same disgust that today we reserve for people like George Wallace. Boy howdy, we can't wait.

The confidence we have in the eventual outcome of the battle for gay rights is not a confidence we possess in regard to all civil liberties issues. Take the effort to insert creationism into the classroom. While people become more tolerant of "others" over time, by way of personally getting to know people who belong to those other groups, the same cannot be said of scientific knowledge. If anything, it seems that the scientific knowledge of the average American is declining over time, rather than increasing. As such, we are genuinely concerned about the possibility of creationism sleazily invading the classroom.

This is not the case with tolerance, which seems to expand with each generation rather than dissipating. So while it certainly bothers us to see members of our government promoting a constitutional amendment to enshrine bigotry as the law of the land, we feel safe in the knowledge that, someday not too long from now, gay marriage will be a reality, and the people who today are fighting so hard against equal rights will be reviled as the hateful assholes that they really are. In time, the good guys will win this one.

Of course, the question remains: who will be the next target group in the crosshairs of hateful assholes with political agendas? And when the fuck will the average American (not to mention these idiot politicians) wake up to the fact that extending civil liberties to one "group" of people — whether they are categorized by color, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation or any other inherent trait — by its very nature demands that you extend those same liberties to all groups?

It's such a silly thing, really. Here's the point: when you make modifications to legislation, or any rules and regulations, because your current documentation is falling behind Modern Progress, why not preemptively ensure that your work will flow smoothly into the next bit o' Modern Progress coming down the pike? You know: plan ahead.

There's a perfect example staring us right in the face. Take a look at the U.S. Constitution — specifically the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-Fourth and Twenty-Sixth Amendments.

Hey, none of us are perfect. That's the beauty of a malleable legislative document like the Constitution: it lets us keep up with the pace of civilization by adapting to innovation and invention. So it makes sense that, when the time came that we wised up and abolished slavery, we also realized that we needed an amendment to guarantee voting rights for those of different races (different, that is, from the good old fashioned white males who ruled the country with a stainless steel fist). Sounds good, right? Sure, give people voting rights regardless of race, color, or any previous condition of servitude.

Jump forward forty years...and now those pesky proto-feminists are mentioning, in passing, that it isn't quite right that women don't get to vote. (Note to pesky modern feminists: we're joking about the "pesky" part.) So, hey: let them vote! Sounds good, right? Sure, give people voting rights regardless of sex.

But here's where it starts getting silly. We've figured out that you shouldn't prohibit folks from voting based on race, nor on sex...at this point, shouldn't it occur to the lawmakers that you shouldn't prohibit voting rights for any reason? To put it simply: shouldn't the Nineteenth Amendment have been painted with a much broader stroke?

As it turns out, apparently not. Look at the next two amendments we're addressing: the Twenty-Fourth says you can't stop people from voting for failure to pay any form of tax, and the Twenty-Sixth says you can't stop (eligible) people from voting because of their age.

And there's the problem...why do we need to keep adding amendments that specifically address only one form of discrimination? Shouldn't we have realized, the second time around, that interfering with anyone's voting rights for no good reason is a bad thing? Why don't legislators think ahead?

We're waiting for the same bullshit to come down the pike with regard to this "marriage amendment" silliness. Sure, we'll get past the issue with regard to homosexuals and marriage, as we predict...but what then? What will the next flavor of discrimination be, and why don't we simply enact laws now to prevent such stupidity in the first place? How fucking nearsighted must we be, to knock down discrimination issues one at a time without addressing the larger issue of discrimination itself?

When our politicians can answer questions such as these, we think we'll be in for a true Golden Age of democracy. Until then, we'll just shake our heads at their foolishness and intolerance, and continue voicing our support for the civil liberties of everybody.

I wouldn't be so sanguine about the trend toward greater tolerance. Tolerance is driven by education. If the theocons are successful with their redumbening campaign of undercutting public schools, science in the classroom, and educational opportunity at every level, we could well see a return to the not-so-good ol' days. The Taliban did quite a number on Afghanistan. The only difference is that the Republicans don't yet have complete control of the country.

-Jason-

I fear we are heading toward another dark age, where despair and hopelessness will prevail throughout eternity.
the worst part is, I'm an optimist.

Anyone who even mentions a gay marriage ban in the coming elections has proven to me that s/he has zero grasp on the real issues facing this country and doesn't deserve to be in office. It's my litmus test. Beating up on gays is easy; fixing the economy is not. Healthcare? Education? Unemployment? The war?
Hello??

Why is god so worried about gay marriage whilst being totally uninterested in humanity destroying so many of the species he lovingly created?

Jason — You're right, of course. Education would hasten the acceptance of homosexuals (and all other targets of discrimination). But in our experience, issues like these — taken individually — revolve more around socialization than education. It's easy to dislike and fear someone you don't personally know. Homosexuals were closeted for a long time, and as such, even if you knew one, you very likely didn't even know that you knew one. Now, thanks in part to television and movies (the entertainment media get it wrong quite often, but we give credit where it's due), more and more homosexuals are coming out. As such, many people who assumed that they didn't know any homosexuals ten years ago can now say that they know quite a few.

Education is paramount to understanding, and understanding is paramount to acceptance or tolerance — you'll get no argument from us. However, this personal experience — literally getting to know people — more often than not can quite capably overcome stereotypes and knock down barriers, as we learn that [insert any group of "others" here] are just people...like all the rest of us. Some are good, some are bad, some are smart, some are stupid. It may not be a speedy process (damn it), but historical perspective has demonstrated that it is the normal progression for society. Bit by bit, "separate" groups are taken into the fold and absorbed — "them" becomes "us."

However, it's important not to confuse these "bit by bit" steps towards tolerance with universal progress, which is what you seem to be getting at. As sure as we are that homosexuals will be accepted in this country in the next generation or two (or at least as accepted as black people are today, which — it pains us to say — is not completely), we are equally sure that some other group will be demonized and discriminated against just as harshly. We have no idea who that group might be (though our Magic 8 Ball is staring right at us atheists), but then again, twenty years ago, homosexuals weren't on the radar enough to know that they would be next on the chopping blocks.

All that said, is it possible that the social tolerance we predict will not develop? Sure; and it's the dark ages that AgentX speaks of that could make that happen. You're absolutely right that education is an invaluable tool to fight such dark ages. If we truly continue our march toward a theocratic police state, historical rules — at least in the short term — go out the window. And if the model changes, then who knows what will transpire. Moving backwards is never fun.

— • —

AgentX — We hear you. We worry about that quite often ourselves. Step 1: Get the Republicans out of power in Congress this year. Step 2: Get Bush and Friends out of the White House in 2008. Step 3: Get someone intelligent into power. This last is, sadly, the most difficult step, as we have no idea who we'd like to see in that role. But let's concentrate on steps 1 and 2 for now.

— • —

Rixta — Bingo. The fact that these pricks all clearly know that the constitutional amendment will fail, and they're pursuing it anyway, really drives home the point that they don't give a fuck about any of the real problems our country and its citizens are facing. Instead, they spend their time (and our tax dollars) posturing before the hateful moron contingent in their voting ranks. It makes us physically ill.

— • —

Simon — Doesn't the Bible say that we're supposed to be sacrificing cows or bulls or some such critters in the name of Mister Love Thy Neighbors And Rape Their Daughters? Maybe the systematic extinction of so many animals is just the Bible-humpers way of catching up, to make up for centuries of sacrificial slacking off on our part.

Hey, hey. Let's keep it friendly guys.