# "It's open season on gay people in this country." **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 3, 2004, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-open-season-on-gay-people-in-this-country/272865 "2004-11-03T22:57:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-open-season-on-gay-people-in-this-country/272865/81 "2004-11-07T16:35:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If I had been assigned to draft this amendment, I might have included a clause that said, “Congress has the power to define ‘incidents of marriage’.” That would allow a detailed definition to be crafted. Or alternatively, a second clause that confirms that states can create legal relationships that are not marriages, such as Vermont’s civil union statute. I’m afraid that the ambiguity on such a crucial point leaves me very sceptical of the _bona fides_ of the persons proposing it, if they say it only applies to marriage and leaves it up each state to decide about civil unions. If that’s the goal, say so. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-open-season-on-gay-people-in-this-country/272865/82 "2004-11-07T16:39:18Z")
> [@KellyM](#): > > The federal constitution has no comparable language, and it’s going to be much harder (read: essentially impossible) to rest an equal protection claim in the relatively weaker protection given by the Fourteenth Amendment. What about the quote above from _Lawrence_, which relies on the Due Process clause, not Equal Protection clause, of the Constitution? > [@KellyM](#): > > The only way that’s going to happen, IMO, is if we see a marked change in the political/philosophical composition of the Supreme Court, and with the recent election results I don’t see that happening for at least another twenty or thirty years. Be honest — you didn’t expect the current Supreme Court to rule as it did in _Lawrence_, did you? ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-open-season-on-gay-people-in-this-country/272865/83 "2004-11-07T16:46:55Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > What about the quote above from _Lawrence_, which relies on the Due Process clause, not Equal Protection clause, of the Constitution? I think the difference between _Lawrence_ and the gay marriage issue is that _Lawrence_ was about the criminalization of consentual conduct between adults. There is a fundamental difference between failing to give legal significance, but otherwise ignoring, gay relationships, and making such relationships a crime. I think O’Connor’s swing vote will swing the other way on the gay marriage issue, and possibly even one or two more on the left. You don’t see due process invoked that often for noncriminal matters. And I don’t expect Bush’s replacements for any of the likely-to-retire-soon Justices to be any friendlier. If it weren’t already precedent, _Lawrence_ wouldn’t have a prayer in the Court as Bush intend to constitute it. > [@Walloon](#): > > Be honest — you didn’t expect the current Supreme Court to rule as it did in _Lawrence_, did you? No, I didn’t expect O’Connor to swing to the left on that one. She’s the most unpredictable Justice on the bench, however. ---
**Author:** ![capacitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e47774/32.png) [@capacitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capacitor)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-open-season-on-gay-people-in-this-country/272865/84 "2004-11-07T17:10:17Z")
Bush and Cheney spoke in FAVOR of civil unions for gays. I might have voted against them, but that is a ballsy position for a conservative to take. And DOMA was signed by our beloved Clinton. And evangelicals who might have been swayed to the other side, voted firmly against gay marriage because they hear and read about insults heaped upon them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-open-season-on-gay-people-in-this-country/272865.md?page=4)