Before he (sort of) signed off on regular blogging, Andrew Sullivan asked why religious conservatives aren’t pushing for an anti-abortion amendment to the Constitution. He said that the fact that it wouldn’t win enough votes in Congress can’t be the answer; neither would the Federal Marriage Amendment, and religious conservatives want a vote on that. He concludes, “[An anti-abortion amendment] deals with a much graver issue, by the religious right’s reckoning–an immense loss of human life, rather than the grave evil of two human beings committing to one another for life. So why this priority? Surely, abortion is a more important matter than same-sex marriage–even for the religious right. Or is it?”

Actual supporters of the FMA would be better situated to answer this question than I am. I assume the answer is political. Republican politicians think that pushing for an anti-abortion amendment would be politically damaging, whereas pushing for the FMA isn’t damaging and may even be helpful. Religious conservatives know they therefore won’t get anywhere asking politicians to push for an anti-abortion amendment but will get somewhere asking them to hold votes on the FMA.

Perhaps I am incorrect in this description of the political dynamic at work here. But it does seem to me that political actors can legitimately take account of these sorts of considerations when deciding what to push for. A religious conservative, or anyone, trying to figure out whether he should fight for a constitutional amendment on a particular issue has no obligation to base his decision solely on the abstract importance of that issue. He can respond to political circumstances. Having said this, I certainly agree with Sullivan that abortion is a far graver evil than any that may be involved in same-sex marriage. And I wish him all success in his non-blog endeavors.