Republicans unruffled by silence on ‘marriage’

Republicans and others who seek to ban same-sex “marriage” say they’re satisfied with the limited attention that speakers paid to the issue at the Republican National Convention last week.

Most of those interviewed say they’re pleased that President Bush mentioned the issue in his acceptance speech and that opposition to same-sex “marriage” is in the party’s platform.

“It was not shortchanged or overplayed; I think it was handled just right,” says Sen. Wayne Allard, Colorado Republican and sponsor of the constitutional amendment to ban homosexual “marriage,” which failed in a Senate vote this summer.

“The most important thing is that the president talked about it,” says Janice Crouse, spokeswoman for the Concerned Women for America’s Legislative Action Committee. “The thing America will be looking for is what will the president say and what is in the [Republican Party] platform, and both those statements are very clear.”

In his speech Thursday night, Mr. Bush briefly addressed the issue.

“Because the union of a man and a woman deserves an honored place in our society, I support the protection of marriage against activist judges,” Mr. Bush said to applause, although he didn’t mention the constitutional amendment that he supports.

“Bush threw just enough red meat to the base to get them excited, without going overboard and sounding too shrill,” one Senate Democratic aide says. “Republicans went to great lengths not to dwell on this issue.”

A few Republican leaders also mentioned the issue in their speeches, including Sens. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina and Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. But prime-time speakers focused on national security.

“During prime time, I don’t think it got a lot of play,” Family Research Council President Tony Perkins says. “But the president’s strongest applause lines were on marriage and the unborn, so it is an issue that resonates with the Republican Party.”

Some Republicans “would have liked to see maybe a little more emphasis on it,” Mr. Perkins says, but “I wouldn’t say we’re disappointed.”

Mr. Santorum says for election purposes, the Bush campaign wanted the convention’s focus to be on national security, so other issues such as marriage and even the economy were “pushed to the rear.” Though not thrilled with that situation, he wasn’t angry either.

“Had they focused on six issues, and not [marriage], I would have said, ‘Hey, wait a minute,’” he says. “But they didn’t; they focused on one issue.”

The Republican Party platform, on the other hand, includes a three-paragraph section titled “protecting marriage.” It defines marriage as the “special union of one man and one woman” and strongly supports the president’s call for a constitutional amendment defending marriage from “activist judges.” It supports House-passed legislation that would strip federal court jurisdiction over cases involving the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Christopher Barron, political director for the Log Cabin Republicans, a group of homosexual Republicans who oppose the constitutional amendment, says the party platform was “crafted and controlled by the far right,” while the main focus and speakers at the convention put forth a more moderate face.

“It was a tale of two cities, when it came to questions of the gay community,” Mr. Barron says.

Story Continues →