Steven Taylor is pretty sure a Constitutional amendment won’t get out of Congress.
So both sides are spewing a lot of hot air over nothing.
Congress should take the heat.
What I find interesting is that for over 30 years I’ve been told that marriage doesn’t matter. Divorce is no biggie. So what is the big deal? Why now?
The people saying an Amendment isn’t going to happen are correct. If the Democrats can’t muster a third of the Senate or house to vote against it, they’re doomed. If the Demcrats can’t keep 14 of 50 state legislatures from passing it, they’re utterly incompetent. So what the President is proposing is something that lets him take a position that will keep his conservative base happy, and has no chance of ever coming into force.
Silly question: if the overwhelming majority of gays are going to vote Dem anyways, why should Bush piss off people who are going to be chosing between voting for him or staying home come election day?
Remember that three of those states with DOMAs got them via referendum after the legislatures refused to ban same-sex marriage ontheir own. These states are CA, HI, and NV.
So it is likely none of these three states will vote to ratify a federal amendment since amendments are voted on by the state legislatures.
That leaves 35 states that one could logically summe would vote to ratify an amendment. In at least three of these states, the Democrats control at least one house of the legislature that they did not when the original DOMA was passed. So in theory you cannot count on these states 100%. So we are down to 32 states in which ratification can be seen as likely.
Remeber folks, the Flag-Burning Amendment didn’t get out of the Senate, and that one has, unfortunately (I’m pro-free speech, even repulsive speech) has widespread appeal in the country. The FMA doesn’t. It won’t pass a filibuster in the Senate, may not even have 50 votes. The Dems & independent are against it, I bet Chafee and a few other Republicans are, too. Heck, it may not even make it out of the House.
Still, it is a pretty stupid amendment.
And then there’s the other method of amending the Constitution: It involves 3/4 of the states passing resolutions demanding Congress to call a Constitutional convention to decide the issue! You won’t hear about it in the mainstream press, but it’s there.
The other side will say that such conventions can spriral out of control as they could conceivably pass any amendments desired. NOT if Congress specifically says in issuing the call to convention that said convention can ONLY debate the issue of allowing gay ‘marriages’.
We’ll see what happens from here.
The absolutist version won’t pass either house–a version based on DOMA and a simple declaration that the U.S. Constitution shall not be construed to require any state to recognize gay marriage (I’ve seen a few versions like this floating around) might well do so. Edwards and Kerry might be hard pressed to explain why they find an amendment objectionable that reflects exactly what their stated position on the matter of gay marriage is.