How do you know when a Democratic politician is telling the truth? David Frum documents the positions of prominent Democrats who profess to support traditional marriage, but not if that means actually, you know, supporting it:
What is the Democratic position on the amendment? As near as I can tell it amounts to this. They say they oppose same-sex marriage ? but then they also oppose the constitutional amendment necessary to prevent same-sex marriage. Oppose it? That understates the case: They regard the amendment as bigoted, hateful, cruel.
Here for example is DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe earlier this week: “It is wrong to write discrimination into the U.S. Constitution.”
Teddy Kennedy echoed the point: George Bush, he said, will “go down in history as the first president to try to write discrimination back into the Constitution.”
Hillary Clinton issued a statement through a representative: “I do not support amending the Constitution to address this issue. The Constitution is a sacred document and should not be used as a tool to divide the American people.” [What about the Bible? Is that sacred?]
John Edwards, campaigning as the candidate of down-home values, nonetheless unrelentingly opposes the FMA as well: “This dispute can be resolved in California without amending the federal Constitution.”
Senator Kerry?s spokeswoman complained that the president is “using wedge issues and the politics of fear to divide the nation.”
Harsh. But not so harsh as the spotlight that the Democrats? words throw on their own true interior convictions, or lack of them. By now it?s clear that the state-by-state formula endorsed by Democrats is a formula for letting the most liberal state courts in the country write their preferences into the law of the nation ? the whole nation. The ritualistic affirmations of marriage mean nothing. When support is needed, the national Democrats all line up on the other side.