Culture Warriors Taken in by Empty Promises -- Again

Margaret Romao Toigo



I never thought I would see the day when I would feel sorry for the likes of Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council -- but that day has arrived (and on the same day when I also find myself defending President Bush's priorities). Of course, this was to be expected, even with the neoconservatives and their so-called "culture war" getting so much attention. Nonetheless, I can always sympathize with earnest people of faith when their interests are cast aside after their political usefulness has been exhausted.



A front page story in The Washington Post reported that President Bush, "will not press senators to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage," during his second term. And with the President's ambitious agendas with regard to Iraq, the war on terrorism and Social Security and tax reform, who can really blame him for de-prioritizing a social issue which most of the American people have deemed
unimportant in comparison -- especially when congressional officials have been saying that securing the 67 votes needed to pass the amendment in the Senate will be impossible?



Well, Mr. Perkins certainly does. In a January 17th FRC press release, Mr. Perkins responded to the President's position, "The president has a mandate to protect marriage, therefore he, not members of the Senate, must lead the effort to protect the institution of marriage."



It seems that Mr Perkins and his fellow culture warriors are now beginning to realize that they've been had. The "values voters" -- who would probably have otherwise stayted home on Election Day 2004 as they did in 2000 -- were effectively duped into casting their votes for President Bush's re-election because of the President's endorsement of a Consitutional amendment to pre-emptively ban the secular, legal recognition of same-sex marriage.



Now, "protecting marriage" might not be as important to the majority of the American people as say, the war in Iraq, but it is a priority for the "values voters" whom some pundits and policy makers believe helped to turn the election in President Bush's favor, even if others disagree with that assessment.



Regardless of the subsequent debate about which factors most swayed the results of the 2004 election, the fact remains that people and organizations like Mr. Perkins and Family Research Council were motivated into action by what they perceived to be President Bush's strong stand against same-sex marriage. And they worked very hard, expending their time, energy and money on get-out-the-vote campaigns, fundraising, rallies, media appearances, etc. Even though I disagree with their cause with every fiber of my being, I found their level of activism to be most inspiring, while the liberals seemed only able to dream of launching such a widely successful grassroots movement.



Which is why I feel a sort of pity for Mr. Perkins Like the victims of con artists are often taken in as a result of their own greed and covetousness, Mr. Perkins and the "moral majority" appear to have been taken in by a political campaign which effectively used the pride and wrath of conservative Christians to secure votes. And now that the President has been re-elected, the interests of the faithful have been cast aside in favor of matters which have very little to do with the interests of the religious right. The question is now one of what the culture warriors will do -- or not do -- when they are called upon again in 2006 and 2008.