# Anti-Gay Amendment Vote in 2 Weeks -- Predictions? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 25, 2004, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gay-amendment-vote-in-2-weeks-predictions/252204 "2004-06-25T17:33:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2004, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gay-amendment-vote-in-2-weeks-predictions/252204/21 "2004-06-25T21:57:33Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > 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. So what? Didn’t the majority in the South oppose desegregation? Did the Supreme Court “ram it down their throats”? If this were to pass, what would that mean for MA, since they have gay marriage now? ---
**Author:** ![cheddarsnax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cheddarsnax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cheddarsnax)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2004, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gay-amendment-vote-in-2-weeks-predictions/252204/22 "2004-06-25T22:17:28Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > Cite, please. “If the Massachusetts Legislature crafts an appropriate amendment that provides for partnership and civil unions, then I would support it, and it would advance the goal of equal protection.” –[John Kerry, 2/27/04](http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/workschool/p/JohnKerry.htm) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2004, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gay-amendment-vote-in-2-weeks-predictions/252204/23 "2004-06-25T22:48:10Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > Cite, please. [Per the Boston Globe:](http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/02/26/kerry_backs_state_ban_on_gay_marriage/) > [@](#): > > Kerry backs state ban on gay marriage > Says amendment must provide for civil unions > By Patrick Healy and Frank Phillips, Globe Staff, 2/26/2004 > > TOLEDO, Ohio – Presidential candidate John F. Kerry said yesterday that he supports amending the Massachusetts Constitution to ban gay marriage and provide for civil unions for gay couples. ---
**Author:** ![spectrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc29f/32.png) [@spectrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spectrum)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2004, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gay-amendment-vote-in-2-weeks-predictions/252204/24 "2004-06-25T22:54:37Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > 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. Thanks for your non-contribution. Now please, return to your compound, Mr. Phelps. ---
**Author:** ![Reeder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Reeder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reeder)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2004, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gay-amendment-vote-in-2-weeks-predictions/252204/25 "2004-06-25T22:58:48Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > 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. If that’s not the most stupid thing I have ever read…it’s right up there. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2004, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gay-amendment-vote-in-2-weeks-predictions/252204/26 "2004-06-25T23:01:51Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > So what? Didn’t the majority in the South oppose desegregation? Did the Supreme Court “ram it down their throats”? That anology doesn’t hold. The people in the south could have tried to amend their state constitutions and I’m certain the SCotUS would have found those amendments violate the US constitution. Not the same with gay marriage. Almost all the states have DOMAs, and not one has been found to be unconstitutional at the federal level. [Many states are in the process of amending their constitutions to ban gay marriage.](http://www.boston.com/news/specials/gay_marriage/national/states_laws/) If you have a source that indicates the SCotUS would declare either the DOMAs or the state amendments unconstitutional, let’s see it. > [@](#): > > If this were to pass, what would that mean for MA, since they have gay marriage now? Only by judicial mandate. This would nullify the MA SC ruling and throw the issue into the legislature where it belongs. ---
**Author:** ![spectrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc29f/32.png) [@spectrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spectrum)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2004, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gay-amendment-vote-in-2-weeks-predictions/252204/27 "2004-06-25T23:05:02Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Not at all. It is well accepted that the FF&CC does not apply to areas where states have explicit policy prohibiting something. Loving v. Virginia, which required Southern states to recognize mixed-race unions that could not legally be entered into in the South would seem to contradict your opinion. A state couldn’t simply say “We won’t marry Catholics in Kansas, nor recognize the union of two Catholics,” that would be struck down as a violation of the FF&C Clause in a heartbeat. Eventually, I believe the same will be true regarding gay unions. > [@](#): > > Simple. Every poll shows a majority of MA citizens opposed to gay marriage and supporting a state constituional amendment prohibiting it. What polls are you talking about? I’m pretty certain that the latest polls I’ve seen showed a plurality opposed to ratification of the amendment. > [@](#): > > It was “rammed down their throats” because, given the chance to vote on gay marriage, it would fail. The rights of minorities should NEVER be put up to a vote by the majority which was discriminating against them in the first place. Should Southern whites have been allowed to vote on whether Southern blacks should be allowed to vote? Should they have been allowed to vote on whether blacks and whites should be allowed to marry each other? Of course not. In any case, given the extreme length of time involved in passing a constitutional amendment, what was the SCOM supposed to do, say “This is evil discrimination that violates the law, but here, take three years and try to change the law so that this evil discrimination is now legal”? I don’t think the Massachusetts Constitution will be changed. The issue has shifted since equality came to town. Now, when the legislature reconvene next year to consider re-affirming their intent to ban, they’ll have a year’s worth of evidence showing that gay marriage harms no one and disrupts nothing. The thin coalition that put together this amendment text could easily fracture. The amendment may never even make it onto the 2006 ballot. And if it does, I have a hard time believing that decent people would go to the polls and gleefully vote to rip apart, spit upon and destroy thousands upon thousands of families in their own state. I don’t think that the people of Massachusetts have that much evil in them. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2004, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gay-amendment-vote-in-2-weeks-predictions/252204/28 "2004-06-25T23:52:59Z")
> [@spectrum](#): > > Loving v. Virginia, which required Southern states to recognize mixed-race unions that could not legally be entered into in the South would seem to contradict your opinion. > > A state couldn’t simply say “We won’t marry Catholics in Kansas, nor recognize the union of two Catholics,” that would be struck down as a violation of the FF&C Clause in a heartbeat. Eventually, I believe the same will be true regarding gay unions. But states CAN"T say they won’t recognize a union of two Catholics, so that analogy makes no sense. If you look into this, you will see that most of the legal opinions come down on the side of no FF&C for gay marriage. We’ve been over this a number of times in GD threads, and I’m pretty certain that the legal concensus here is that the FF&CC does not apply in this case. > [@](#): > > What polls are you talking about? I’m pretty certain that the latest polls I’ve seen showed a plurality opposed to ratification of the amendment. Going from memory here, but I could be wrong. At any rate, I agree that polls change over time so it’s not a good way to make public policy. But the fact remains that any and all parts of the constution are decided by majority vote. > [@](#): > > In any case, given the extreme length of time involved in passing a constitutional amendment, what was the SCOM supposed to do, say “This is evil discrimination that violates the law, but here, take three years and try to change the law so that this evil discrimination is now legal”? The court could have required that the state allow civil unions for gays until the necessary legislative process is played out. Put a reasonable time limit on it (2-3 years?), but let the people decide. States routinely regulate marriage and when most state marriage legislation was crafted no one even dreamed that gay marriage would be an option. I’m not arguing against gay marriage, just the process by which it is achieved. ---
**Author:** ![spectrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc29f/32.png) [@spectrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spectrum)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2004, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gay-amendment-vote-in-2-weeks-predictions/252204/29 "2004-06-26T00:29:29Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > But states CAN"T say they won’t recognize a union of two Catholics, so that analogy makes no sense. It makes no sense for a state to be able to say “we won’t recognize marriage between gays” but not be able to say “we won’t recognize marriage between Catholics” or Jews, or a white man and a black woman, or any other combination of demographics you want to fill into that blank. > [@](#): > > If you look into this, you will see that most of the legal opinions come down on the side of no FF&C for gay marriage. We’ve been over this a number of times in GD threads, and I’m pretty certain that the legal concensus here is that the FF&CC does not apply in this case. I still don’t see how it applies regarding mixed-race couples, but not regarding same-sex couples. That’s totally incoherent. But I’m not a lawyer or a legal expert (foreign policy is more my area of study), so I’m quite possibly very wrong. > [@](#): > > Going from memory here, but I could be wrong. At any rate, I agree that polls change over time so it’s not a good way to make public policy. But the fact remains that any and all parts of the constution are decided by majority vote. And the majority voted to have an equal protection clause in that Constitution, and that clause is what made it impossible for the state to bar gays from the altar/clerk’s desk. The Supreme Judicial Court was merely enacting the will of the people as expressed in their Constitution by opening marriage up to all Massachussetsians (what the hell do you call people from Massachusetts anyway?). It would have been unconscionable for the court to say “look, this is evil discrimination, but we’ll ignore it, or band aid over it, while you go make it _legal_ evil discrimination.” > [@](#): > > The court could have required that the state allow civil unions for gays until the necessary legislative process is played out. Put a reasonable time limit on it (2-3 years?), but let the people decide. According to the court, the people already decided, when they wrote the equal protection language into the document. Should every court case of Constitutional import be stayed for 3 years to allow the people to alter the Constitution? That would be an absurd way to administer justice. > [@](#): > > I’m not arguing against gay marriage, just the process by which it is achieved. I understand, and appreciate your support for equality, even though I disagree with your posture re: Massachusetts. I think the SJC of Massachusetts did precisely what courts are there to do: it ensured that the laws of Massachusetts conformed to the Constitution of Massachusetts. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2004, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gay-amendment-vote-in-2-weeks-predictions/252204/30 "2004-06-26T00:38:42Z")
What? There has been gay marriage in MA for over a month?! How can that be? Where is the total breakdown of family values? The dogs and cats, living together in cross-species miscegnation? The plagues of frogs, boils and salamanders from Jehovah’s vengeful hand? Where are the gay police, rounding up children on the way to their first communion, and spiriting them away to queer education camps? I suspect that what will actually happen is that some way will be found to postpone the vote, in order to forestall committment until the direction the wind is blowing can be ascertained, as well as which side of the political bread has the political butter. That way, the Right gets what it wants: a grandstanding display of solidarity with the base. As well, another chance to decry how the liberals have, once again, thwarted God’s Will. And the Left can, somewhat weakly, claim the success of not losing against almost insurmountable odds. And the vast, uncertain middle gets more time to study the question, and determine what thier unassailalbe committment to principle demands. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2004, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gay-amendment-vote-in-2-weeks-predictions/252204/31 "2004-06-26T00:40:12Z")
Frankly, I’m disappointed that I [started a thread on this very topic,](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=261962) and this one already has six times the responses mine did. What, do I not have enough GD cred? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2004, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gay-amendment-vote-in-2-weeks-predictions/252204/32 "2004-06-26T00:49:58Z")
Perhaps, at some point in the future, you may be invited to join the SDMB Elite. Our standards are entirely arbitrary, our approval fickle and mercurial. At any rate, you will be permitted to display the Crimson Asterisk of Cecil when you start a thread (which is, of course, invisible to the uninitiated) and then you will be guaranteed a response more in line with your expectations. I can post this to your thread in calm assurance that the other Elite will not be posting here, and thereby discover my indiscretion. I’m counting on you not speak of it outside these confines. Consequences, you know. Dreadful consequences. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2004, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gay-amendment-vote-in-2-weeks-predictions/252204/33 "2004-06-26T00:54:08Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Perhaps, at some point in the future, you may be invited to join the SDMB Elite. Our standards are entirely arbitrary, our approval fickle and mercurial. At any rate, you will be permitted to display the Crimson Asterisk of Cecil when you start a thread (which is, of course, invisible to the uninitiated) and then you will be guaranteed a response more in line with your expectations. > > I can post this to your thread in calm assurance that the other Elite will not be posting here, and thereby discover my indiscretion. I’m counting on you not speak of it outside these confines. Consequences, you know. Dreadful consequences. So, just to make sure, I have to be a liberal, right? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2004, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gay-amendment-vote-in-2-weeks-predictions/252204/34 "2004-06-26T00:57:35Z")
> [@spectrum](#): > > …what the hell do you call people from Massachusetts anyway?. Liberal? 🙂 I’m from MA, and I don’t know what we call ourselves. > [@](#): > > It would have been unconscionable for the court to say “look, this is evil discrimination, but we’ll ignore it, or band aid over it, while you go make it _legal_ evil discrimination.” I understand the thinking there, but I also understand that had gay marriage been contemplated when the laws were written, it would be outlawed. I see it as legalistic to the extreme to say: “Well, you didn’t specificy that marriage was only between a man and a woman, so we’re going to assume that you meant it to be between any two adults”. We’ll see what happens in MA, and maybe the amendment won’t pass there, but it certainly will pass in some states. I supsect this will be a long drawn out process that will end up in the SCotUS eventually. There’s just no way to get around that. As many of us have said in other threads, it would be best if the gov’t just got out of the marriage business altogether. Let people marry or not marry as they will, and the state can be there to validate any legal contract a couple\* wants to draw up. \*or whatever groupings might occur ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2004, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gay-amendment-vote-in-2-weeks-predictions/252204/35 "2004-06-26T01:00:29Z")
Either that, or obnoxious. Your call, really. Take your pick. It should be noticed that some of groundlings achieve a similar effect by starting threads with provacative and/or metaphysical titles: “Is God A Homo?” for instance, or “Is George Bush on meth?”. That sort of thing. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2004, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gay-amendment-vote-in-2-weeks-predictions/252204/36 "2004-06-26T01:05:00Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > Frankly, I’m disappointed that I [started a thread on this very topic,](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=261962) and this one already has six times the responses mine did. What, do I not have enough GD cred? 😃 You need a snappier title. FMA?? Who the hell knows what that is? “Gay armagedon on hand!” would be sure to net you 5 pages at least. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![spectrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc29f/32.png) [@spectrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spectrum)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2004, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gay-amendment-vote-in-2-weeks-predictions/252204/37 "2004-06-26T01:12:17Z")
Yes, you need to write your headlines like you’re a reporter for the New York Post. Sensationalism sells, man. Also, a blatant bias in the thread title (“anti-gay” as opposed to FMA) reels in both those who agree with you, and those who hate you and want to argue. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![spectrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc29f/32.png) [@spectrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spectrum)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2004, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gay-amendment-vote-in-2-weeks-predictions/252204/38 "2004-06-26T01:15:05Z")
However, had I seen your thread, I would not have posted mine. I don’t like to step on people’s toes like that. It’s very rare that I start threads, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2004, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gay-amendment-vote-in-2-weeks-predictions/252204/39 "2004-06-26T01:15:42Z")
Yeeeesh, then my thread title “BLS methodology: Unemployment Statistics” is going to suck donkey then? Wlel, maybe not, “unemployment statistics” might snap some heads, though the thread itself is on statistics instead of policy. BTW, in my experience, when you have a “normal” and “elite” group, the “elite” group will completely withdraw from the “normies” and form their own society. Case in point - Fark. ---
**Author:** ![spectrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc29f/32.png) [@spectrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spectrum)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2004, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gay-amendment-vote-in-2-weeks-predictions/252204/40 "2004-06-26T01:25:26Z")
Zag, people are joking. There’s not really such a bifurcation here at the SDMB. There are posters everyone knows and respects, like Polycarp and Liberal when he’s sane, but that’s about it. And in any case, were there an elite society, not-too-well-liked me certainly wouldn’t be a part of it. 🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gay-amendment-vote-in-2-weeks-predictions/252204.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-gay-amendment-vote-in-2-weeks-predictions/252204.md?page=3)