All Violence All The Time

"The coverage of gay marriage has a tentative, muted feeling. As filtered through the mainstream media, gay marriage seems not so much a righteous cause, inherently worthy of our attention and concern, as another strange, colorful chapter in the never-ending 'culture war,' a phrase that appears over and over in the mainstream coverage. The media, which are normally so good at creating heroes, have not yet given us a gay Rosa Parks or even a gay Gloria Steinem. Why? Perhaps the story is still too young. But I think it's also about the journalists. A lot of straight mainstream media people, the sort of people who work at national newspapers and TV networks, would probably tell you they support gay marriage, but in a vague this-is-what-people-like-us-believe sort of way. Even in the age of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, gay marriage still makes a lot of heterosexuals, including liberal ones, a bit queasy. If the polls are accurate, I guess this is one way in which journalists actually resemble everyday Americans. . . .

"Republicans have been using gay marriage as a political issue for a long time. . . . So why is the politics of gay marriage front and center this time around? My guess: Because it's just so damn obvious . For the White House to bring up this issue again, just before an election, with Republicans struggling to hold on the House and Senate, after barely mentioning it since 2004 -- well, it's almost insulting, isn't it? Journalists don't like being treated like fools, and it seems like an 'enough is enough' factor has seeped into the coverage."

From the right, Captain Ed finds himself in rare agreement with E.J. Dionne that the marriage maneuver is meaningless:

"Obviously, the demands from conservatives and the White House (working at cross purposes) pushed immigration back onto the list, regardless of consensus. If that was the reason why the GOP put off immigration, then tackling gay marriage makes no sense at all, except as a cheap political stunt, as Dionne describes. Not only does a consensus not exist for two-thirds support of this amendment, it doesn't even exist among the GOP caucus. DOMA has not yet been fully tested in the courts, and with the new additions showing more deference to the legislature rather than themselves as policymakers, the prospects for its survival do not look particularly grim.

"So why now? Because the fight on immigration has weakened the White House in the run-up to the midterms. In that sense, I give the White House full marks for courage, just as I did with Social Security reform last year. Bush has stuck to his guns on his vision for immigration reform, even when a good chunk of his party disagrees with him so fundamentally, and he has not dodged the fight at all. In fact, he probably would have been smarter to do immigration reform last year and had this well behind him, and saved Social Security reform for this year. On the whole, he would have done less damage to Republican election prospects.

"This will do nothing to improve his standing among his base. Most of them gave up on any real attempt at marriage 'protection' last year, when the Senate agenda was released. The lack of action over the last eighteen months also spoke volumes about the commitment to this cause from the White House. Some may get excited by the debate, but even for the supporters of such an initiative, this will be seen as an empty political gesture and nothing more."

At Right Wing News, though, John Hawkins says:

"Given Ted Kennedy's latest comments, it seems that the Democrats aren't just for gay marriage, they believe people who have a traditional view of marriage are bigots.

"'A vote for this amendment is a vote for bigotry pure and simple,' said Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, where the state Supreme Court legalized gay marriages in 2003.

"So Democrats, like Ted Kennedy, think Americans who simply believe marriage should be between one man and one woman are bigots. See? This is great information for the American people to have and it's something people should think about before they pull the lever for the Democratic Party . . . which explains why the Democrats are acting as if merely having this vote is some sort of dirty trick."

Let's check in on the corruption beat with Washington Monthly guest-blogger Steve Benen :

"In terms of the criminal trial, it's important that David Safavian, the Bush administration's former top procurement official, acknowledged yesterday that he provided 'a lot of insight and advice,' including government information not available to the public, to Jack Abramoff. Since Safavian was arrested last September for doing secret favors for Abramoff, his former employer, it was a key admission.