Some Senate Notes - Reading from Friday's Congressional Record, I gather that when you want to bash gays as badly as will happen under the FMA, you need the cover of some soothing words. Therefore, we have Senator Allard (R-CO), the measure's chief sponsor, painting a picture of modern Americal life as a rosey, pro-gay legal environment:

American society has come to recognize the stability and commitment of same-gender couples in a way unimaginable in many other countries. In some states partnership laws and civil union statutes have been created--contractual bonds among same-gender couples--to symbolize and codify these relationships. Some cities and States have elected to express this legal recognition while others have not. Some employers extend benefits to same-gender partners while others do not. In virtually every town and city, America's tolerance and respect for diversity is second to none in the world. I believe that our democracy continually, systemically expresses these values. Marriage, however, is what it is. It is a union between a man and a woman. Gays and lesbians are entitled to the same legal protections as any one else. Gays and lesbians have the right to live the way they want to. But they do not have the right to redefine marriage.

He went on to say "the amendment does not seek to prohibit in any way the lawful, democratic creation of civil unions" or to prohibit private DP benefits. Oh, yeah? Tell that to the bigots in Richmond, or to the ones on the GOP platform committee. While Allard's alleged "tolerance and respect" for homos is nothing but a new-found political expediency, Friday's speeches also included Sen. Smith (R-OR) who has effectively recanted his prior support for gays for similar reasons. In fact, Smith fairly bitched about being put between a rock and a hard place on this issue:

In all the time that I have been a U.S. Senator, I have been an advocate of gay rights. Yet throughout that time I also have believed it right to defend traditional marriage. I have tried hard to be clear, consistent, and careful about this issue and this debate. I know my position as being for gay rights but for traditional marriage is a disappointment to many of my gay and lesbian friends. I also note for the record I get little credit from the right because I do advocate for many gay rights. Indeed, the other night on his radio program, Dr. James Dobson said to a national audience, which included many Oregonians, that I was not going to vote for traditional marriage. I wish he hadn't done that. I believe that is a form of bearing false witness because I have been clear and I have been consistent on this point. He may owe me no apology, but I wish he would make it clear to my constituents.

Boo hoo. To coin a phrase, either you're with us or you're against us, Gordo.

P.S. Reading from the same talking points as Allard, Dubya pushed the gay-bashing FMA in his weekly radio address too. (We know how the bigot brigade loves listening to radio.) Unlike the good Senator, however, Bush didn't see fit to cover his ass with some feel-good B.S. praising America's tolerance for gays.