# Senate debates, Bush backs, anti-SSM amendment. Implications? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 6, 2006, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-debates-bush-backs-anti-ssm-amendment-implications/359639 "2006-06-06T17:28:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 4
**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 8, 2006, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-debates-bush-backs-anti-ssm-amendment-implications/359639/61 "2006-06-08T01:17:09Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Is that the same Robert Byrd that voted yes on [The Defense of Marriage Act](http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00280) in 1996? Or Kerry, Lieberman, Leahy, Hollings, Biden, Graham, and 26 other Democratic Senators? > > What was different in 1996 that led to a 2/3 majority vote? Had to be something … Read his web site. Just type his name into Google. But don’t confuse DOMA with this amendment. They’re quite different. DOMA allows SSM, but it doesn’t require other states or the federal government to recognize it. That’s the consensus opinion of the Democratic party. This amendment forbids SSM at both the state and the Federal level. And, it would be ver difficult to change if it were ever enacted. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2006, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-debates-bush-backs-anti-ssm-amendment-implications/359639/62 "2006-06-08T02:13:25Z")
> [@Orbifold](#): > > And to be honest I’m disappointed that there weren’t more Democrats taking Byrd’s position. I would have been thrilled to see the Democrats put a bullet in the head of this amendment on Monday. But that would (a) have forced Democrats to take a strong stand on something, and (b) denied Senator Inhofe (to pick on one Republican at random) the wonderful opportunity to stand in front of a giant photo of his family and bloviate about how proud he was that there was no history of “any kind of homosexual relationship” in his family. I think the dems strategy here is to give the Republicans enough rope to hang themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2006, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-debates-bush-backs-anti-ssm-amendment-implications/359639/63 "2006-06-08T02:51:33Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > I think the dems strategy here is to give the Republicans enough rope to hang themselves. I don’t understand why the Pubbies didn’t find a way to stretch this one out for a couple more months. That way they could tell the basest of their base that “we’re working on it” without having to, you know, actually take an actual position. Anone? Anyone? -Joe ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2006, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-debates-bush-backs-anti-ssm-amendment-implications/359639/64 "2006-06-08T02:52:34Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Read his web site. Just type his name into Google. > > But don’t confuse DOMA with this amendment. They’re quite different. DOMA allows SSM, but it doesn’t require other states or the federal government to recognize it. That’s the consensus opinion of the Democratic party. This amendment forbids SSM at both the state and the Federal level. And, it would be ver difficult to change if it were ever enacted. Read it. It does not fully address court challenges. The [amendment](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:1:./temp/~c109AdlHek::) doesn’t prevent states from allowing other civil relationships. What it does is prevent courts from striking down state laws enacted to codify marriage as 1m1w. **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.’.** Your point regarding the difficulty to change it is noted. I look at all legislation that way. ---
**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 8, 2006, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-debates-bush-backs-anti-ssm-amendment-implications/359639/65 "2006-06-08T03:02:48Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Read it. It does not fully address court challenges. > > The [amendment](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:1:./temp/~c109AdlHek::) doesn’t prevent states from allowing other civil relationships. What it does is prevent courts from striking down state laws enacted to codify marriage as 1m1w. You’re right. It doesn’t forbid SSM, it makes certain that it can only be enacted thru legislatiive action. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2006, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-debates-bush-backs-anti-ssm-amendment-implications/359639/66 "2006-06-08T03:14:30Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Read it. It does not fully address court challenges. > > The [amendment](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:1:./temp/~c109AdlHek::) doesn’t prevent states from allowing other civil relationships. What it does is prevent courts from striking down state laws enacted to codify marriage as 1m1w. > > **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.’.** > > Your point regarding the difficulty to change it is noted. I look at all legislation that way. So, question for the lawyers out there: if a state (say, California) ammended its constitution to specifically allow gay marriage, how would that be affected by this law? And how does the MA decision allowing gay marriage work with this legislation? ---
**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 8, 2006, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-debates-bush-backs-anti-ssm-amendment-implications/359639/67 "2006-06-08T03:37:12Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > So, question for the lawyers out there: if a state (say, California) ammended its constitution to specifically allow gay marriage, how would that be affected by this law? And how does the MA decision allowing gay marriage work with this legislation? IANAL, but I think the answer is pretty obvious. The MA court decsion would be voided, and SSM would only become legal again in MA if the legislature approved it. CA wouldn’t necessarily even have to amend it’s consitution (although prop 22 might require that). Any state legislature could legalize SSM (provided SSM wasn’t forbiden by that state’s constitution). But DOMA couldn’t be challeged and no state would be required to recognize SSM from another state. And it looks like the amendment would aslo ensure that civil unions could not be required by the courts on constitutional grounds either. The big question would be what about all the SSMs already performed in MA? Do they become null and void? I wonder if that would require a SCOTUS decision. ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2006, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-debates-bush-backs-anti-ssm-amendment-implications/359639/68 "2006-06-08T03:40:19Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Is that the same Robert Byrd that voted yes on [The Defense of Marriage Act](http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00280) in 1996? Or Kerry, Lieberman, Leahy, Hollings, Biden, Graham, and 26 other Democratic Senators? According to your own cite, Kerry (and Kerrey, as well, in case you meant him) voted against DOMA. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2006, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-debates-bush-backs-anti-ssm-amendment-implications/359639/69 "2006-06-08T03:52:23Z")
> [@waterj2](#): > > According to your own cite, Kerry (and Kerrey, as well, in case you meant him) voted against DOMA. Good catch. I stand corrected. Screwed up the text-to-columns function in Excel. Stands to reason given his state. My apologies for the error. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-debates-bush-backs-anti-ssm-amendment-implications/359639.md?page=3)