Proposed constitutional ammendment would ban gay marriage

[Justice]

This morning, on the train going to work, I read a frightening Associated Press story in one of my local papers. Some group is going to propose an ammendment to the US Constitution that would ban gay marriage. Although that right is only legal in Vermont, it's still a very scary thought. I just checked The Advocate's web site. Here's a link to their article.

 

http://www.advocate.com/html/news/late_news/late_news01.asp

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

Everybody can just calm down. It aint gonna happen.

 

I'll give a little civics lesson to those of you who don't know about constitutional ammendments.

 

To ammend the constitution, it requires a super-majority of Congress and 2/3 of ALL THE STATES.

 

Who gives a shit if someone is proposing it? Propose away!

 

It aint gonna happen.

 

Period.

 

Informatively yours,

 

FFF

[Guest 7Zach]

Well...I think it would pass the house by 2/3s; it always passes the flag desecration amendments. the states? hmmm,2/3 majority would be 34 states to pass. and doesn't it only require that it be passed by a majority vote of the state legislatures for const. amendments. so i am not so sure. In the Senate, would take 34 members to vote against it, and i agree, i think u would have that many. but in an election year for some of them, no way.

[Guest bottomboykk]

Is it 2/3 of the states or 3/4? I thought it was 3/4. Haven't studied the Comstitution recently, but I think I'm remembering correctly.

[Guest 7Zach]

don't believe everything u read...i was wrong, requires 38 states to pass, leaving 12 to be able to block. ny nj ct mass ca fl? think so; vt rhode island il? don't think so, too large southern base...so that's 8, what are the rest?

[Guest CZ]

FFF absolutely right about the non-starter status of this pathetic little gesture of fear & loathing. What's more, advocates for gay marriage shouldn't only calm down; they should rejoice: hate-filled religionists wouldn't be proposing such constitutional mischief except to prevent something they genuinely fear may happen from actually happening. They sense that the sociocultural momentum is against them. And they're right.

[Guest dickhawaiikai (Guest)]

I’m not so sure that you guys are right about this being a non-starter. We might have a real fight on our hands.

 

Until just a couple of years ago, Hawaii was considered one of the most liberal states and the one most likely to establish some form of gay marriage. But when a group like this put up a constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage, 76% of the population voted for it. Having won that victory, our local homophobes, intoxicated by victory, moved on to become advisors to those doing the same elsewhere.

 

Will it be hard to get 2/3 of the members of both houses of Congress to vote for such an amendment? Maybe not. They voted overwhelmingly for Clinton’s defense of marriage bill.

 

Will it be hard to get 3/4 of the states to pass such an amendment? Those proposing such an amendment will probably not be seen as the hate-filled homophobic religionists that they are. The Advocate story calls this a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage but those proposing the amendment won’t call it that. It’s always a “defense of traditional values” or “a definition” of marriage as one woman, one man. That strikes most people (76% in my state) as reasonable. And how many states have already amended their state constitutions this way? (That’s not a rhetorical question… I don’t know the answer, but it’s more than a few.)

 

Is a “defense” of traditional marriage against the sociocultural momentum, as CZ suggests? I don’t think so. I think that the US is as conservative now (both the government and the population) as it was in the 50’s. If such a constitutional amendment could be enacted by a national popular vote, it would pass easily. Fortunately it cannot be done that way, and legislative involvement is the reason this may not get too far too fast. The regulation of marriage has always been considered the business of the states. That means that some very conservative members of Congress and some very conservative state legislatures might oppose this becoming a federal matter.

[Guest DCescortBOY]

honestly, until the specific language of the proposed amendment is available, it is going to be very difficult to determine the prospects of congressional super-majorities and state ratification.

 

i do agree with the general overarching message that we're probably putting our efforts to better use by challenging specific existing roadblocks.

 

let's don't forget that the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) died even after many states had ratified it, because enough had not done so within the statutory deadline. there's always my favorite lesbian, barbara mikulski, in the senate to filibuster until the statute setting the deadline is adjusted so as to make ratification impossible.

[Bilbo]

As for a sociocultural movement going, I fully agree that it is happening and has been gaining momentum since the 60s. The two cultures will clash, and the loser will always be around, but the ultimate winner, I definitely believe, will be us. I highly recommend the book, "Cultural Creatives," and those same authors have a website, but last I checked it was not nearly as good as the book.

[Guest CZ]

I wonder if one of the constitutional scholars here would tell us what the last constitutional amendment was and when it was enacted. Perhaps that could give us a needed perspective here.

[Guest DCescortBOY]

a brief run-down on constitutional amendments in the USA...

 

26 amendments so far have been ratified, thousands have been proposed.

to be ratified, an amendment must be passed by 2/3 majority of both houses of congress, OR congress may call a special national constitutional convention at the request of 2/3 of the state legislatures. (this convention route was done with the 21st amendment.)

then the amendment must be ratified by 3/4 of the states, in one of 2 ways:

by the legislatures of the states OR by ratifying conventions in the states. (the ratifying conventions method has never been attempted.)

the last amendment to succeed was the 26th amendment, which grants voting rights to 18 year olds. it was ratified in 1971 and took 4 months. this was the FASTEST ratification ever. (remember that communications had improved since the 1790s.)

if you're curious, the 22nd amendment (limiting presidential terms in office) took the longest time to ratify--3 years, 11 & a half months.

 

yes, if you're wondering, i am a political science major, and yes, i got an A in my constitutional law course.

 

hope it helped...

[Traveller]

>Who gives a shit if someone

>is proposing it? Propose away!

>

>

>It aint gonna happen.

>

>Period.

>

 

But F3, isn't it much more fun to make mountains out of molehills. Let's call them the M&M crowd. It can certainly fill a day.

 

Later.

 

PS. I've already faxed the 17 Democratic governors, Daschle and Gephardt a detailed, 48 page rebuttal (with footnotes) to help fight this heinous amendment as the Washington Times predicts it will become law by Friday.

[Barry]

Thanx........that was VERY helpful. :-)

[Guest DCescortBOY]

why would you fax only democrats?

how much of a friend to gay people was bill clinton when he signed DOMA? a democrat senator from georgia (sam nunn) was the chairman of the senate armed forces committee that killed the initiative on gays in the military. the state of maryland has had democrat governors since 1968 & the statehouse has been under democrat control since the 1930s, and yet it took a court challenge to overturn the state's sodomy law (in 1999). joe lieberman's response to questioning on gay marriage was VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL to george w. bush's. dick cheney was the only major candidate who said anything remotely gay-friendly during the debates.

i agree that in general, there are more VOCAL opponents of "gay issues" on the right, but the left is hardly a safe haven.

[Guest bottomboykk]

Question for you: Wasn't there a 27th ammendment? It had to do with congressional pay raises not taking place until after an election or something like that. It took about 200 years to ratify, but there was no deadline in the ammendment. I remember it being certified by whoever it is that certifies that the ammendment is in force. I remember it being controversial due to the length it took to ratify, but at the time they (the proverbial "they") were saying it was legit. Haven't heard anything about it in several years, so my memory is rather sketchy.

 

Anybody know anything about this?

[Traveller]

>why would you fax only democrats?

>

>how much of a friend to

>gay people was bill clinton

>when he signed DOMA? a

>democrat senator from georgia (sam

>nunn) was the chairman of

>the senate armed forces committee

>that killed the initiative on

>gays in the military. the

>state of maryland has had

>democrat governors since 1968 &

>the statehouse has been under

>democrat control since the 1930s,

>and yet it took a

>court challenge to overturn the

>state's sodomy law (in 1999).

>joe lieberman's response to questioning

>on gay marriage was VIRTUALLY

>IDENTICAL to george w. bush's.

>dick cheney was the only

>major candidate who said anything

>remotely gay-friendly during the debates.

>

>i agree that in general, there

>are more VOCAL opponents of

>"gay issues" on the right,

>but the left is hardly

>a safe haven.

 

 

F cubed is this what they mean about fish and barrels?

 

Later.

 

PS. Time to smoke a bone a see Moulin Rouge.

[Guest DCescortBOY]

interesting that you'd resort to derision when you can't challenge the points i've made. actually, it isn't that interesting at all. if anything, it seems to be your preferred mode of operation.

 

<<F cubed is this what they mean about fish and barrels?

 

Later.

 

PS. Time to smoke a bone a see Moulin Rouge.

 

>>

[Guest DCescortBOY]

you're correct.

the 27th amendment was ratified in 1992.

the amendment was sent to the states for ratification around the time of the bill of rights. it was acted upon by various states until 1873. then, nothing happened until the 1980s, when it was revived. the original statute sending it for ratification had no time limit on the process (most amendments did have a time limit).

the 27th amendment is officially part of the constitution, but, it has no practical effect. what the amendment calls for had already been done in statute by general practice for many years.

 

thanks for reminding me of this, and for correcting the little factoid. this is INDEED the amendment with the longest ratification period.

 

sorry for the error.

[Traveller]

>interesting that you'd resort to derision

>when you can't challenge the

>points i've made. actually, it

>isn't that interesting at all.

>if anything, it seems to

>be your preferred mode of

>operation.

>

 

Well, as my point was a joke, as our most of my non-escort specific posts, I decided to ignore the point that that it was obviously lost on you. Have a nice day.

 

Later.