Do you think an anti-gay constitutional amendment could pass?

[stevedeshazer]

I don't.

Any such amendment would require a 'yea' vote by a two-thirds majority of the members of the House of Representatives (290), and the Senate (67).

Additionally, such an amendment would require the approval of the legislatures of thirty-eight (38) of the several states.

Conversely, just 145 members of the House and/or thirty-three Senators could end the effort before it ever gets out of Congress.

Even if it gets out of Congress, which I doubt will happen, the legislatures of thirty-eight states would have to approve it.

That means only twelve state legislatures are needed to either reject it outright, or fail to act. I can think of twelve right away. How about you?

This is not to say that Bushco won't use this as election-year fodder. He already has. But it takes years, even decades, to amend the U.S. Constitution. That is as it should be. Bushco is taking a short-term view in an election year and is appealing to his conservative base.

For a relevant example, take a look at the proposed Equal Rights Amendment. It reads as follows:

"Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex."

Does this sound radical to you? This amendment was first introduced in 1923 and subsequently every year. It finally was passed by Congress in 1972, ironically in the heart of the Nixon administration. It still hasn't been ratified.

I love my gay friends, and they all should be allowed to marry if they wish. They should not be used as election year pawns.

Shame on those who engage in this kind of personal and political destruction. And power to anyone who has a loving relationship and is denied the rights of the many by the shallow whims of the few.

[arewethereyet]

1. yes its possible

not sure its likely yet but certainly possible.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

2. I'm Ashamed of My Country Right Now

If this country includes outright bigotry in the Constitution, it's time to relocate. I'm in my 30s, but it's not the country I grew up in.

I think there are enough bigots in the House and Senate to pass an amendment, unfortunately.

[distortionmarshall]

9. sigh.....

.... i feel for you, but if the amendment passes, that's the WORST time for you to leave - the country needs fighters, not quitters - it's only halftime dammit - the game ain't over - it's still winnable! - this is YOUR country too - the american-evildoers want nothing more than for you to leave....

sheesh - whatever happened to that "American Fighting Spirit"? - lol - imagine the Buffalo Bills before they're 28 point comeback: "if they score again, I'm quitting"...

[Kathy in Cambridge]

29. I'm a married hetero woman and I feel this way; I can only wonder

how my gay friends feel right now.

[Pegleg Thd]

14. Remember this

without bigots there would be no repuke party!! If we throw them out of the wh and congress this year we can kill their plans..

[Sterling]

3. No

This culture war will work in our favor. It is just what the doctor ordered. Make people pick sides. You are with the bigots or the humans.

[HornBuckler]

4. Well Said

I Agree... Completely...

[stevedeshazer]

17. I've thought about that a lot

Definitely, it is time to force the issue, election year or not.

I think it will take the form of a person in the right place at the right time. Just in the last few decades we have:

Rosa Parks

Cesar Chavez

Muhammad Ali

Boris Yeltsin

That Chinese guy in Tiananmen Square

Vaclav Havel

Nelson Mandela

Just to name a few.

[Scottie72]

5. Unfortunately I think it does

that is why we have to fight this. DOMA passed easily. There are either 38 or 39 states with their own DOMA legislation. There is an outside chance this could pass. I for one am not going to take it lightly.

[DuctapeFatwa]

6. it would also require amendment of the 1st and repeal of the 14th

I don't know if it will pass.

Let's see.

[saltpoint]

7. In this case I think the Press will --

-- cut this Amendment off at the knees.

In the face of real crises, Bush proposes trips to Mars and now wants to ban gay marriage.

A lot of moderate Republicans must be thinking that Bush is cooked.

They'd be right.

[arewethereyet]

11. if it ever gets this far, the press will have no impact at all

when THE PEOPLE get riled up, there's no stopping them.

[gristy]

8. No, it is not possible.

Impossible is what it is.

[ComerPerro]

10. No, they are just doing it to rile up the rabit right

You know, the supposed "Christian" right, who apparently care about "family values" (but I have never seen a conservative who was a decent human being).

They are just trying to make the Republicans feel that they are being attacked, and are trying to make them seem like they are being made victims (despite their complete control of the Government)

[emulatorloo]

12. No, it can't pass

it is really hard to get an amendment to the constitution. Especially one this wacky.

[Taeger]

13. YES !!!!

[madrchsod]

15. not a chance

it`s all bullshit.

[BrokenSegue]

16. no

but if it did and the last one was any example, it took over 30 years to pass it (I heard it was over 6o somewhere not sure it it's true)

[stevedeshazer]

19. If you are referring to the ERA,

It was written in 1921, and has been submitted to Congress every session since 1923. It finally passed Congress in 1972 with a ten-year limit for passage by the states. It expired in 1982; but 35 of the needed 38 states passed it.

States who ratified/did not ratify the ERA:

[Badger1]

18. Something to consider

It' known as the 4th amendment, equal protection, due process under the law, ma boy.

[Badger1]

21. Correction

4th or the 14th amendment

[Renew Deal]

20. I doubt it.

The house Dems need to hold on.

[DianeG5385]

22. No, and we have to keep remembering Bushs's record

has led us to this point. If he campaigned on his OWN record instead of distracting us ala flag burning (and THAT didn't work either) he would so lose! It would continue his long string of failures and bankruptcies...only in this case, he bankrupted the country!

[Cleita]

23. You are still believing we live in a rational nation.

I am seriously concerned about this. It's about scapegoating. The ultra right wing was targetting liberals as scapegoats, but since there are a lot of us, which they realized with the primaries, they are moving in on gays. The Nazis started blaming Jews for the problems of Germany at the time they rose in power. It worked because they played on the ingrained prejudices of the Christians. They are starting to do the same with gays IMHO.

[stevedeshazer]

26. I'm concerned, too

That's why I posted the thread.

Your point is well taken. Call me crazy, I still believe that there are enough rational nationals to prevent this amendment from ever seeing the light of day, beyond being an election issue in 2004.

I know there is scapegoating, I agree. I get the Nazi parallels, too.

The antidote is that many good people such as you can prevent this in the long run and change the world.

If things were hopeless, you wouldn't bother to post here, no?

[Cleita]

30. True, but I am pushing a big rock uphill, in my neighborhood

anyway.

[tedoll78]

24. I think the senate will decide it.

38 states? No problem.

2/3 of the House. No problem.

67 senators. A big question-mark.

And the question is.. which 34 senators will vote against it?

I know of two.. Senators Ted Kennedy and John Edwards.

Is there anywhere I can go to find-out who else opposes it? I suspect that Schumer, Leahy, & Jeffords oppose it.

[SaveElmer]

27. Doubt it will pass the house

Speaker Hastert has already admitted as much.

Barbara Boxer came out aginst it.

I really don't think you are gonna get 17 Democrats to vote for it. Nelson of Mebraska, DINO Miller...can't really think of anyone else.

I might add Breaux, but he is retiring so I don;t think he will either.

[stevedeshazer]

31. If I had to guess

Senators who I think would NOT vote for an anti-gay constitutional amendment:

Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas
Barbara Boxer, California
Dianne Feinstein, California
Christopher Dodd, Connecticut
Joe Biden, Delaware
Thomas Carper, Delaware
Bob Graham, Florida
Daniel Inouye, Hawaii
Daniel Akaka, Hawaii
Tom Harkin, Iowa
Barbara Mikulski, Maryland
Paul Sarbanes, Maryland
Ted Kennedy, Massachusetts
John Kerry, Massachusetts
Debbie Stabenow, Michigan
Carl Levin, Michigan
Mark Dayton, Minnesota
Harry Reid, Nevada
Frank Lautenberg, New Jersey
Jon Corzine, New Jersey
Jeff Bingaman, New Mexico
Charles Schumer, New York
Hillary Clinton, New York
John Edwards, North Carolina
Ron Wyden, Oregon
Lincoln Chafee, Rhode Island
Jack Reed, Rhode Island
James Jeffords, Vermont
Patrick Leahy, Vermont
Patty Murray, Washington
Maria Cantwell, Washington
John Rockefeller, West Virginia
Russ Feingold, Wisconsin
Herb Kohl, Wisconsin

That's 34 right there.

Also, there are maybes:

Joe Lieberman, Connecticut
Richard Durbin, Illinois
Ben Nelson, Nebraska
Kent Conrad, North Dakota
Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania
Tom Daschle, South Dakota

link to gay rights voting records and scores: http://www.actwin.com/eatonohio/gay/impvtsen.htm

Twelve states that wouldn't ratify? How about:

California
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Oregon
Rhode Island
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin

That's fifteen.

[tedoll78]

35. Okay..

you're making me feel better. Thanks :)

I really really wanna get married. After 7 years, I still love this guy like crazy!

[Mick Knox]

25. I dont think it passes.. n/t

[La_Serpiente]

28. Yes

crazy things have been happening these past few years.

An impeachment? Election decided by the SCOTUS? 9/11? Illegal Invasion of Iraq?

If they passed the temperance amendment, then this one can pass as well. Remember, 37 states have already passed DOMA laws of their own.

They can pass this. I am taking NO chances this year.

[Silverhair]

32. Wishful thinking.

Every single Representative if up for reelection every two years. To vote against the amendment would be seen as being pro-gay marriage. Today's Newsweek has a poll that show 77% opposition to gay marriage. The lowest figure that I have seen is 67%. Congressmen don't like to buck those kinds of numbers on issues that are highly inflamed.

Senate, similar problem, except for the reelection schedule.

Ratification. 38 states ALREADY HAVE DOMAS. It is reasonable to assume that the same states that have DOMAs will ratify the amendment.

Twelve states can't stop an amendment. It takes thirteen. Do the math. 38 states is enough to pass the amendment.

[stevedeshazer]

33. Oops, okay 13

You're right.

But your explanation is too simplistic. Not every state or congressional district is the same. To pass a DOMA like many of these states did in the dark of the night is not the same as ratifying a constitutional amendment. That would be a lot tougher, IMO.

[Silverhair]

34. I guess we will have to watch how it play out.

I am not optimistic on this one. I feel like what one of the soldiers of the Light Brigade must have felt like when told to charge directly into the enemy cannon. This is not going to have a happy outcome for our side.

[stevedeshazer]

36. I agree with that, too

There is no happy outcome, just a win by not losing too badly.

We'll see, indeed. :)

[imax2268]

37. what happend

to protecting the freedoms of all Americans...?

I guess BushCo just wants certain people to enjoy those freedoms...

I wonder how Cheney's daughter feels about this...???

[adamblast]

38. I think it's got a strong shot at passing...

...a much better chance than most people realize. I think it's close to 50/50.

Sadly, few Democratic politicians have *EVER* shown themselves willing to fight for gay Americans if it might cost them a vote or two.

Gay marriage will become a reality soon through the courts, unless an ammendment stops it... and I think the call for that ammendment will grow stronger and stronger as that reality approaches.

I fully expect to be an official 2nd-class citizen within the next few years. It's not that radical a step, if you consider that gays have been more-or-less 2nd-class citizens all along...

I intend to fight like hell anyway. And I hope I'm wrong.

[stevedeshazer]

41. I hope you're wrong, too

For if gays lose, we all do.

Who's next? Liberals? Non-Christians? Vegetarians? We'll have to roll back all the civil rights gains of the last fifty years.

[tritsofme]

39. I think it is probable...

This is the type of crap that flies with the sheeple, because nobody like them dirty hommmosexuals.

As has been pointed out, 38 states already ban gay marriage, and I think its on the docket in a handful of other states.

The worst part of this is, now is probably the last chance they will get to push this amendment through, younger people are much more liberal on this issue. But the problem is we will never have enough votes to repeal it if it gets in the Constitution.

[Lone_Wolf]

40. If the Repugs played by the rules...

...it probably wouldn't pass. However, they don't play by the rules. I'm sure they would go to great lengths to get 2/3 of the states to call on Congress to convene a Constitutional Convention.

Any proposed Amendments that would come out of such a Convention worry me. You can be pretty sure that an Amendment banning gay marriage will not be the only Amendment coming from such a Convention.

The Repugs play for keeps so I'm also sure they will do anything to get the required ratifications by 3/4 of the states or state legislatures.

[Morning Dew]

42. number of states that won't pass it,,,

I don't think you can count on Minnesota anymore - we've been hijacked by the right wing - this state is no longer the Minnesota it used to be.

[Silverhair]

45. No, Conservative are terrified of a Constitutional Convention.

They don't want a con-con because they can't be sure of controlling it.

[Lone_Wolf]

60. I don't know about that...

Right now, there is no real precedent to use as guideleines for a Constitutional Convention. They would literally, be making up many of the rules as they go along.

I'm sure if the GOP had substantial control of which delegates were sent to a Constitutional Convention, then this would be the route they would use.

[GreenPartyVoter]

43. Yea, it could

Heaven knows other bad policies have been rolled through this Congress. :eyes:

[imax2268]

44. BushCo says...

[DennisReveni]

46. Sure it could

You better go back and check out how many politicians voted for the Unconstitutional DOMA.
Many of them are still in office.
This includes the Democrats as well.
If Clinton had done the right thing in 96 and NOT signed DOMA we would not have this problem today.
But, once again he did what was best for Bill. Instead of doing the right thing he did the thing for the right.

[Gore1FL]

48. DOMA and an Ammendment are significantly different

And I will wager that DOMA didn;t even pass with 2/3 in both chambers.

[Silverhair]

50. You lose the wager.

It passed the house by 342 - 67, and the Senate by 85 - 14.

[Gore1FL]

47. For what it is worth

the 27th amendment took over 200 years to be ratified. Others have been ratified in under a year, but lets face it --- this one is not popular enough, based on current polls, to pass. the numbers seem to be trending away from the barring of marriage rights and eroding as quickly from support of such an amendment.

In short -- It won't pass this year, and every year that passes it will become a less and less popular issue.

[Silverhair]

51. 77% of the general populace opposes gay marriage.

How do you interpret that stat as being good for our side?

[mondo joe]

56. Because you're not looking at all the stats

Of those who oppose same sex marriage only about half support a constitutional amendment.

[Beetwasher]

59. Less than Half

Only 40%.

[Beetwasher]

58. That Percentage is Bullshit

Got a link?

That last comprehensive poll that was scientific that I saw had a majority who didn't support gay marriage BUT they majority (60%) also DID NOT SUPPORT AN AMMENDMENT and that is the important question that you dishonestly fail to mention. People may be personally opposed, but they don't support amending the constitution.

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGA2KSP82RD.html

[skippysmom]

49. I think anything is possible.

If it can get through congress -- and I do think 2/3rds in the senate would be difficult for the homophobes to find -- I think states will be falling all over each other to ratify.

Edited to add that I don't think any of those states are a lock not to ratify. Given what's been going on here in Mass lately, I wouldn't put it past them to ratify it. Perhaps I'm paranoid.

[terrya]

52. In this climate, right now? Yes...

But remember...amendments can also be repealed.

Prohibition, anyone?

Terry

[Silverhair]

61. Any 13 states can block a repeal.

Can you think of 13 real conservative states?

[Silverhair]

62. Also, who will push hard for the appeal?

Only a very small part of the population will be effect by the FMA. It will be pretty hard to get a serious majority of the nation to move on something that they won't feel effected by.

[kayell]

53. I think it is possible - right now I'd guess 55%not, 45% will

It all depends on how skillful the wingers are in whipping up full scale hate in the public. Will they be able to pull off a nazi-like shift in our country to blaming gays for all that is wrong with society? Will those who disagree, but not strongly, remain silent because they are not personally endangered?

While I think (and hope) that * has overplayed his hand, I do not feel confident enough to sit back and trust in my fellow human beings.

I wish I could be one of those who is sure it can't happen here.

[Silverhair]

54. Some BRUTAL facts about the issue.

The Republican control ALL the committees in congress. Since W has thrown his weight behind the FMA, then it will sail through the committees.

The federal DOMA passed congress 342 to 67 in the House and 85 to 14 in the Senate. That's a very low rate of missed votes. Those are easily enough votes to kill a filibuster attempt, and well more than the 2/3 needed for passage.

39 states have DOMAs. It is reasonable to expect those states with DOMAs to ratify the amendment. None of those states would have enacted DOMAs unless there was popular support for the DOMAs.

It is great wedge issue politics for the Republicans. It is a safe vote for any Rep, and a dangerous one for most Dems. If a Dem votes against the FMA, then he can be sure it will be used against him in the next election, while a Rep can go home and brag about voting for the FMA.

Once ratified - don't look to the courts for help. It will be part of the constitution - the source of all law in the country. By defination it can't be overturned by any court as it out ranks the courts. You can't declare part of the consitution to be unconstitutional, nor can a court shoot it down while in the ratification process as it is only a proposed change - not a law yet.

Nor is repeal likely. Only a tiny percentage of the population will be demanding the repeal, and the repeal could be blocked by any 13 states.

AND

67% of the general voting populace is opposed to gay marriage. Almost all of the 33% that favor gay marriage are ALREADY DEMOCRATS.
The RW base and the swing voters are almost completely opposed.

Yes, there really are people who vote Democrat one time and Republican the next, and vice versa. They really do exist. Just because someone voted for Gore in 2000 DOES NOT automatically make them a hard core DU-participating yellow dog Democrat. And the swing voters ALWAYS decide the election.

Further, Blacks are 75% opposed to gay marriage. Latinos are almost completely strongly Roman Catholic. I would hope that you already know that church's stance on the issue. Further, the famous Latino machismo leaves little room for gays. We only need to lose a few percentage points of our base to get badly hurt.

Sorry, but those are facts, and those facts add up a great wedge issue for the Reps.

Also, remember the POTUS election is decided by the electoral college. If W loses some votes in a strong blue state over this issue he hasn't hurt himself at all. Nor does he help himself by picking up votes in strong red states. But if he picks up some swing voters in marginal blue states and marginal red states, then he would have the election in the bag.

This is a strong emotional issue, and logic doesn't help a whole lot here. It's what's called a "hot button" issue. It gets people all inflamed and motivated. And getting lots of people motivated on an issue that is 67% against us is NOT the way to win elections.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jor_mama]

57. The tide's a turnin' ...

... and that's why there is going to be an attempt to ram-rod this through.

I don't know the number in the Senate or HoR or the number of states that would ratify, but let's say that it's 70 in the Senate, 295 in the HoR and 40 states would ratify. Again, just for example's sake ...

Fifty years ago, it probably would have been a clean sweep (100, 430, and 48 -- pre-HI and AK). And they see that before long they don't stand a CHANCE of getting 2/3 on either side of Congress, much less 3/4 of the states. So their strategy, imho, is to push it through now, and it -- unfortunately -- would stay as a Constitutional amendment until -- like prohibition -- it could be repealed.