The GOP's Cynical Use of Anti-Gay Bigotry

I noted yesterday Representative Simon of the Minnesota House who had dared to ask anti-gay voting Republicans how they could justify their mistreatment of and efforts to deny same sex couples the right to marriage equality. David Schultz, a professor at Hamline University, has a op-ed in the Minnesota Post that answers that question. Schultz makes it clear that the GOP's motivation has nothing to do with respect for liberty, freedom of religion, respect for the Constitution or anything else that has anything to do with integrity. No, it's all about pandering to the Christofascists - America's own version of the Taliban - and playing games to hopefully boost wingnut turn out at the polls. The damage and injustice done to the lives of other tax paying citizens means nothing to these folks. Schultz doesn't say it, but the point is that tawdry whores have more integrity than most GOP elected officials nowadays. Here are highlights from Prof. Schultz's column:
*
No surprise — Minnesota Senate Republicans unveiled, on April 26, a state constitutional amendment to bar same-sex marriage. Assuming it clears the Legislature and goes to the voters, there is no guarantee that it will pass. But that is beside the point. The purpose of the amendment is less about its actual passage than about symbolic politics and voter mobilization in the 2012 elections. Its proposal demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of American politics, the Constitution, and is an unfortunate and cynical appeal to prejudice for political gain.
*
The law should not be fixed in the past, reflecting old prejudices and beliefs. To argue that is to assert that the law should be frozen in the past. Democracy is about consent of the present, not of the past. The logic of fixing laws in the past was characteristic of the most notorious Supreme Court case of all time — Dred Scot v. Sanford — an 1854 decision declaring African-Americans (then slaves) could never be citizens because it was contrary to the intent of the constitutional framers. The same logic persisted in the 1874 Minor v. Happersett case, where the Supreme Court ruled that women could not vote for similar reasons. These decisions reaffirmed old prejudices and beliefs.
*
The purpose of the law should not be to enshrine dogmas and prejudices. The Supreme Court said the same in its 1967 Loving v. Virginia decision striking down a Virginia law barring couples of different races from marrying. In Loving the court declared marriage a fundamental right — the essence of a free society is letting people decide with whom they form a life. Democracy is about majority rule, but such a decision about who we can marry is not a choice for majorities to decide. This is why we have a Bill of Rights — to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
*
One's right to ... freedom of worship ... and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." The same is true with marriage.
*
There is no good public-policy reason to bar same-sex couples from marrying. But the constitutional amendment is not about policy, it is about symbolic politics and voter mobilization. As was demonstrated in 2004, when Karl Rove and the GOP placed bans on same-sex marriage on the ballots across many states, it was a terrific hot-button issue to mobilize voters. It worked. The religious conservatives turned out in droves.
*
[P]lacing the amendment on the ballot is simply an effort to repeat 2004. The hope no doubt is that this amendment in 2012 will offset what some think will be a better year for Minnesota Democrats when President Barack Obama and Sen. Amy Klobuchar are on the ballot. Place this amendment on the ballot and as the theory goes, it will drive more conservatives to vote.
*
Again, the cheapest whore exhibits more honesty than most Republican elected officials - certainly those currently in office in the Minnesota legislature.