Gay Marriage Amendment: Meaningless and Mean-Spirited

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

AP reports:

A proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage was headed toward a House vote Tuesday with supporters resigned to another losing effort but determined to highlight it in this fall’s elections.

“This vote will serve as an opportunity for each and every member of this body to go on record in support or in opposition to protecting the traditional definition of marriage,” said Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., at the opening of the debate on the proposal to define marriage as a union of a man and a woman.

Opponents disparaged the measure as both meaningless — the Senate last month decisively rejected the amendment — and mean-spirited.

“This bill, to put it simply and bluntly, is about adding discrimination and intolerance to the United States Constitution,” said Rep. James McGovern, D-Mass.

If you missed it the first time around, Richard Ford had a piece in Slate last week in which he wondered, a propos the recent proliferation of gay marriage bans, if they reflected not so much anti-gay bigotry as a “deeper-seated anxiety about gender and gender roles,” which earned him a good mauling from a number of Slate readers. (I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest they probably stem from…a bit of both.)

P.S. Meanwhile, a Colorado gay-rights group yesterday accused Focus on the Family founder James Dobson of manipulating research data to say gays and lesbians are not good parents. The NYU sociologist whose research is an issue called Dobson’s interpretation “a direct misrepresentation of the research.” The group, Soulforce, set out to march 65 miles to Focus H.Q. in Colorado Springs to confront the man himself. (AP)


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend