So the state Senate set aside Sen. Mike Brubaker’s proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage yesterday because the state House planned to send it to the State Government Committee, where it would surely have died without a vote.
I’ve opposed this amendment — preferring an amendment that calls for a ban on a court-imposed definition of marriage, on the grounds that we should leave the legal obligations and privileges of marriage in the hands of the Legislature — so I should be glad, I suppose, that Brubaker’s amendment died.
But a couple of things bother me about this.
First, the amendment is clearly one for the Judiciary Committee. The fact that it had to go through the Senate Appropriations Committee after being approved by that chamber’s Judiciary Committee puzzled me. The excuse — that holding a vote on a constitutional amendment involves tax money — was absurd.
And, second, it’s clear that the reason House leaders decided to send it to Babette Josephs’ State Government panel is that they don’t want it to come to a vote.
That’s political cowardice. If the Democrats in charge believe it’s a civil rights issue, they should have the guts to vote the amendment down.
Instead, I suspect, they hope the courts rule their way — that gay marriage is a right — and spare them the difficulty of voting for that position.
While Brubaker’s amendment is imperfect, it had a lot more going for it than the cowardice its opponents in the House are showing.