I Dubya gets his anti-gay marriage amendment passed, what would be the grounds on how they would base if it is a gay marriage. Would it be genetically? Meaning if by some off chance what would be considered a hetro-couple got chariotyped and found they actually where genetically the same sex, would there marriage be anulled? Would it be by the legal status the have with the goverment? Meaning changing your legal status would allow/disallow marriage?
It seems to me however the decide to base it would ultimatly still place certain same sex unions to exist; or make many hetro-couples possible gay?
OK, I don’t fully understand the last part, but I suppose that the question is whether “only a man and a woman” would be based strictly by whether it one person has XY chromosome pair and the other has an XX, or by whether one has a penis and testicles and the other a vagina and ovaries, or by whether they have been legally identified as a man or woman, or by a combination thereof, or by any of them.
The apparent thinking among the states that have already constitutionally banned gay marriage is that at the time of enforcement, they’ll go with whatever is the legal recognition in their books, which generally is to the effect that if, as born, it looks, walks, quacks like a male (or female) it’s a male (or female). In at least some of the ban states the statutes about marriage have also included that there be no marriages involving transgendered people; so that would be then an entire other new court battle, as to what is the legal status of such a person.
No one’s bothered to think out the questions, so it will be a mess.
I wouldn’t call it Bush’s amendment, though. While he favors it, he hasn’t bothered to push it in Congress (others introduced it, not the White House).
What is very interesting that there are two states (including Texas) where a marriage between two people of the same sex is legal. Texas insists that if you have a sex change, you officially remain the sex you were born as. Thus if a man had a sex change, then married a woman, it is legal in Texas, despite the fact that to all appearances, both parties are female. This isn’t just hypothetical, BTW, there are a handful of couples in Texas that are married under this.
Sorry about the confusing question… My hands won’t type what my brain is thinking, or maybe its the other way around.
Basically isn’t the idea of banning gay marriage flawed. Basically anyway you look at it there is exceptions which could make it difficult to enforce?
I guess the real question is though… since different states have different ways of determining what they consider what one sex is from another. Would the standard of what is male and female then be determined on the federal end? Or would that still be left to the states?
It would be determined by whatever court gets the last word in. Should the Constitution be abominated, excuse me, amended, at some point there will be a case which will hinge on the sexes of one or both members of a married couple. Based on precedent it will most likely be a family law case, a divorce or inheritance issue. It would probably fall under the juridsiction of the state court but would eventually end up before a federal appellate court since it would involve a federal constitutional question. Ultimately the Supreme Court would decide whether to accept an appeal on the issue and if it accepts the case would issue a ruling which would be binding on the country.
So assuming Bush gets re-elected? What is the probability of actually getting this passed. It would seem pretty hard to actually get this to pass to me and have it stick.
Actually, from a practical standpoint, I think even the backers know there isn’t a chance in hell of actually passing the thing, so they haven’t bothered to work out the details. I don’t want to go all GD in GQ, so I won’t comment on the proposal pro or con, but I think it’s safe to say that the backers are pretty openly using the prospective amendment as a wedge issue to motivate their base with the full knowledge that it has no chance of being enacted in the current political climate. Any possible mess, therefore, would be strictly in the land of the hypothetical. And saying more would take us out of GQ and into GD, I think, so I’ll leave it at that.
I totally agree. But I’ve got to ask the question why would Bush make a stand on it, knowingly that he is possibly losing some votes out of it? Are really that many more people voting for him because ‘he is’ making a stand on it? Wouldn’t it be better to leave it a non-issue… or follow along the lines of the Kerry camp and say that they’ll just rename it “civil unions?” Is the voting public so swayed by this issue even though it really has little effect on the majority of the hetro population? I mean its not like gays are taking hostages or killing off hetros till they get what they want. It seems to me that the actual effects of “not preserving marriage” would have little impact in the lives of the straight.
Bush (or, more likely, Karl Rove) probably figures that the number of potential Bush voters who would reject him because he’s taking this stand is a small one; folks who hate Bush for this probably decided to vote against him long ago.
In contrast, the calculus is that the folks who will show up on November 2nd and vote for Bush because of this issue will be far greater, resulting in a net gain. This is especially true if John Kerry takes the opposite position – then the Republicans can say to these folks, “If you don’t vote for Bush on election day, John Kerry will win and this amendment will die!” You know and I know it’ll probably die anyway, but that’s irrelevant – the important point is to use it as a rallying point for Bush’s base and get them to show up on Tuesday.
Remember (as Michael Moore likes to point out) that 50% of all eligible voters didn’t vote at all in 2000. Whichever side can convince more of these non-voters to show up on Tuesday has the advantage.
What is the probability of actually getting this passed. It would seem pretty hard to actually get this to pass to me and have it stick.