The Senate is preparing to vote on the anti-gay Constitutional amendment supported by President Bush and the right wing amongst Republicans. The vote on the proposal, which would dissolve all gay marriages and attempt to forever block such gay unions, is schedule for the week of July 12. I figured I’d throw it out to the Teeming Millions regarding what you think the result of this vote will be (will it pass the Senate?), and what political ramifications of its passage/defeat might be.
I think it’s going to fail. The right wingers just don’t have the votes. No way over half the Senate’s Democrats vote “yea” on such an evil, hateful proposal. Even moderate and human Republicans will end up voting against it, I imagine, though under the guise of “protecting federalism,” no doubt.
I think this defeat will leave a bad taste in the mouth of religious conservatives, who will probably blame Bush for not doing enough. It could be a broadside up against the President’s base just as he enters the general election.
It’s going to fail, and then the Amendment’s supporters are going to use the fact that it failed to try to pump up their support among the religious right…something along the lines of:
“We got an amendment to the floor of the Senate that would protect families and limit the power of activist judges, but powerful forces in Washington stopped its passage. That’s why it’s more important than ever that you come out in November and vote for candidates that will fight for the American family and basic moral values”
Do you have a link to the actual amendment? IIRC, there was an effort to modify the previous amendment and ensure that civil unions would not be unconstitutional, but I’m not sure if that got anywhere. So, without seeing the actual amendment, I don’t understand how we can decide either way.
Also, keep in mind that the (religious) conservative Republicans may want this to fail in order to show the country why we need to have conservatices appointed to the SCotUS. The only thing standing between this country and gay marriage is one liberal SC Justice!
On a side note, isn’t it interesting how gay marriage has been going on in MA for over a month now and there have been virtually no news items about it except for a few blurds on the first few days? I suspect the news stories will flare up again once the first lawsuit gets going to force another state or the federal gov’t to recognize a MA gay marriage.
It will fail to pass but succed in forcing Kerry to take make a liberal vote on the senate floor that will be widley reported by the news networks and also show the religious right that the Repubs are trying to fight for family values, etc.
How many moderate republicans vote against this, and how big a backlash there is against it by voters should provide an interesting measure of how strong the moderate voice and the idea of state rights remains in the Repub. party.
John Mace, fox news gives the text as “marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any state, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.”
I presume the “legal incidents thereof” would shoot down civil unions.
No it wouldn’t. The problem with the previous amendment was that it included statutes as well as constitutions in the prohibition of construing the legal incidents of marriage. IOW, the new verision says that the constitution(s) can’t **require ** it, but laws can be passed to **allow ** it. The older version implied that the states could not pass laws allowing the incidents of marriage to be conferred on gay unions.
I don’t think that the new one will pass, but it has a better chance than the older one and will get more votes. I suspect that similar amendments will be passed at the state level in the next year of so-- which is where I believe this issue should be dealt with in the first place.
I can see something similar passing in many states. However, those state constitutions won’t be able to get around the Full Faith & Credit Clause. It seems to me that in a few years we’ll reach a point of stability where the Federal Constitution requires every state in the nation to recognize marriages between same-sex couples and treat them as they would treat any other married couple, but where such marriages can only be obtained in a handful (or less) of states. That seems to be the most Constitutional (barring amendment) final shake out of this situation, and the most equitable.
Thats why I’ll never be a lawyer, I always miss the fine print. I agree that the new amendment is much less drachonian then the old, but that it should still be left to the states.
If this does pass, I wonder what it will mean for Vermont, which has already created a civil union law (not to mention many happy couples) based on a state supreme court descision that this amendment willl invalidate.
I suspect that even if the VT law were struck down, it could be re-voted on and would pass. But, this new amendment would definitely reverse things in MA, and I think that’s the main target-- ie, to prevent state SCs from mandating gay marriage.
Personally, I have no problem with gay marriage, but I don’t like the way it was achieved in MA. The court rammed it down the throats of the people when a perfectly good compromise (civil unions) was available to address the main issue until the legislature had time to deal with it.
That’s rubbish. Pray explain how gay marriage has been “rammed down the throats of the people”–you make it sound as if gay marriage were mandatory. Gay marriage restores equal protection of the law to gay people and in no way affects straight people. To deny gay marriage rights is to act as a dog in the manger.
Not at all. It is well accepted that the FF&CC does not apply to areas where states have explicit policy prohibiting something.
Simple. Every poll shows a majority of MA citizens opposed to gay marriage and supporting a state constituional amendment prohibiting it. John Kerry, btw, is on record saying he’d support that state constitutional amendment as well. It was “rammed down their throats” because, given the chance to vote on gay marriage, it would fail. And I’d put money on a MA amendment eventually passing that prohibits gay marriage. Democracy is like that-- when the people of a state grant a priviledge*, those same people have a right to regulate that priviledge.
*in this case, the incidents of marriage are a priviledge. The state cannot and should not intervene in any religious definition of marriage, but civil marriage is another matter.
Nope. See my earlier post. And if ever there was **anything ** that would spur Congress and the people of this country to enact a US constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, it would be a court case that declared the FF&CC to apply to gay marriage.
I really don’t accept the permise of the OP, it is not anti gay, it is anti same gender unions. ‘Straight’ couples of the same gender would be barred from married, just like ‘gay’ couples could marry if they were of different gender.
And NO I don’t think this as a minor issue as there is gender confusion in many people.