Fantastic column in the Rapid City Journal that addresses Herseth's support for the Hate Amendment. I think the author is right on...
What do you all think?
The Rapid City Journal
March 21, 2004
Sam Hurst: Stephanie Herseth takes a wrong turn
By Sam Hurst, Journal columnist
Stephanie Herseth is too young and too bright to have lost her backbone. At an age when she should be known for brash idealism, she has chosen instead to pander to the dark voices of discrimination. Such is the cynical calculus of electoral campaigns.
Of course, you won't hear about it in her stump speech. You won't read about it on her Web site. It's hidden in the muffled background noise of her cheery, youthful enthusiasm. Nonetheless, there it is. Stephanie Herseth supports President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
In a statement released by her staff, she says, "I see no reason why it (the president's proposal) should not be debated at the national level. That is what President Bush has called for and it is why I did not object to his proposal." She continues. "I hope very much, though, that the timing of his proposal was not political."
What? Does she think we are stupid?
Once her position leaked out, Democratic activists have been struggling to make sense of her new Republican identity. There are the hard-headed electoral pragmatists: "She was just taking the issue off the table, so she won't be criticized by the right." Having already come under attack for her pro-choice position on abortion, the pragmatists argue, "perhaps we can win some votes back by opposing gay marriage." Ah, whip the dog to save the donkey. I can almost see the backroom cigar smoke circling around this logic.
Then there are the party loyalists: "Why would she oppose the position of Senators Daschle and Johnson? Why would she stand against Senator Kerry? Even against Vice President Cheney? Why would she take a position against the right of each state to make their own marriage laws?"
Then there were the outraged idealists who make up the base of the Democratic Party. At least one influential Rapid City couple canceled a fund-raiser for Herseth in disgust.
But for most West River Democrats, who have grown accustomed to being kicked around like dogs, there is a timid, shoulder-shrugging resignation that "she had to do it to get elected." I'm not so sure.
In our national frenzy to pander to the Religious Right, we have already built a fortress of discrimination against gays. President Clinton signed the federal "Defense of Marriage" law, which recognizes marriage as "a legal union between one man and one woman." Thirty-seven states, including South Dakota, have passed their own state laws banning gay marriage, and we have even passed legislation that allows South Dakota to refuse to recognize gay marriages from other states.
The message to tens of thousands of South Dakota homosexuals is perfectly clear: "Take your creativity, your education, your community spirit, your money, your commitment to monogamy, and move to San Francisco."
We don't need to amend the U.S. Constitution to enforce our bigotry. We're doing a great job of that on our own. Besides, we should be defending the authority of each state to make its own laws to govern marriage ... and stand the consequences.
The U.S. Constitution is, arguably, the most powerful engine for civilization ever written. It is crafted to define the structure and processes and especially the limits of government, not to institutionalize cultural or religious bias. But as it is written, it accomplishes much more. It invites us to expand freedom, and each generation, for over 200 years, has done just that.
It has never been easy. You don't like to watch gay men kiss on television? You cannot imagine how hard it was to watch black and white couples kiss in Mississippi in the 1930s. For Southern racists, wrapped in the ignorance of their time, it was, quite literally, like watching a human being kiss a monkey. And it was a lynching offense, supported from the pulpits of Christian churches where the fear of "race mongrelization" was more powerful than Christ's message. Today, all that hatred is just a ripple in the march of freedom.
Now, President Bush wants to turn away from two centuries of history by turning the Constitution into a grab bag of cultural biases that institutionalize the values of "the majority." Ah, that's the rub. The power, the miracle, of the Constitution is not that it enforces the will of the majority, but that it protects the rights of the minority ... those voices which are hated and alone, those voices which stand against the righteous mob of majority rule ... those voices whose time has not yet come.
So, what is a young politician to do, trapped between her conscience and the harsh compromises of an election? I have two suggestions. First, have faith in the voters, Stephanie. Most people do not vote on single issues, and in this case, those who do will never vote for you anyway. On the other hand, most voters do value integrity, even when they oppose your position on a single issue. You are clearly not a champion of gay rights. So be it, but stand for the miracle of the Constitution, and you will be surprised at how many citizens, from both parties, will support you.
Second, call George McGovern. Keep his counsel private, unto yourself. Every young politician needs a sage. Ask him this simple question: "If you could have been elected president by supporting the war in Vietnam, would you have done it?"
Sam Hurst is a documentary filmmaker and buffalo rancher.