Feingold: Don't ban gay unions in Constitution

[leQ]

Madison Capital Times

U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold says he will "lead the charge" in Congress against any move to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage.

"It is unbelievable to me that we would use our Constitution to deal with an issue like that," the Wisconsin Democrat said Tuesday during a meeting with The Capital Times editorial board.

Feingold, who serves as the ranking Democrat on the Constitution subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the committee held hearings on the subject this past summer.

"I think we did very well in pointing out how inappropriate it is for the federal government to have a constitutional amendment to take the decision away from the states," he said. "I think it's really an abuse of the Constitution."

[Democrats unite]

1. Amen to that!

eom

[private_ryan]

2. it doesn't say anything about marriage to begin with

n/t

[54anickel]

3. Go Russ! That's my Senator. I was very proud of him for his stand on

the Patriot Act. Was disappointed when he somewhat back pedaled on that a couple of months ago. Write to him quite often and he always responds. He sort of blew me off on the e-voting, but has since started taking a more serious look.

I think he's a keeper.;)

[MariaS]

4. I'm with ya

He's also my senator (Northern WI). I am very proud of our senators and I am especially proud of Feingold and most of all my district rep David Obey. Wisconsin will help bring it home for the Democrats no matter who the nominee turns out to be.

[pansypoo53219]

6. ooh! Obey!

he's a keeper too!

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. Right on, Russ!

Love Sen. Feingold!

And if the GOP say marriage is so sacred,why aren't they making laws illegalizing divorce and making it a crime to have children out of wedlock? Isn't it the rise in the divorce rate and the idea that it is ok to have children out of wedlock that has led to the degeneration of marriage as an institution?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

7. The wingnuts do that type of thing periodically

They try to enshrine their wedge issues in the Constitution.

Twenty-five years ago they were proposing a Constitutional amendment to ban school busing for integration.

Remember when the Puritanical types banned booze for all those years? Yep, Prohibition was a Constitutional amendment.

The wingnuts in Oregon also love to propose Constitutional amendments by initiative. Their "reasoning" is that it's hard to change a Constitutional amendment once it's in place, and fortunately for the wingnuts, most voters don't think in those terms.

An attorney acquaintance once said that he told people to vote "no" on all Constitutional amendments, no matter what their merits, because trivia did not belong in a state's Constitution. He said that most voters he talked to didn't realize whether they were voting on a statute (which a legislature can repeal easily) or a Constitutional amendment (which is much harder to get rid of).

[bubba_fett]

8. that's m'boy!

I love feingold, I'm a native wisconsinite, but I live in mn (kept my wi residency so I could vote for him in nov). I wrote him a few times about the patriot act, he's pretty good at writing back.

[J B]

9. I'm sorry, but Feingold's argument is full of crap.

I say this as a sympathizer with what he intends to actually do.

But it is not a "state" issue.

It is a "judiciary" issue. The states are not choosing the policy - the courts are choosing it for them. It is not an attempt to use the federal constitution against the states; it is an attempt to use the federal constitution against the judiciary. There is a large difference.

I hope they fail, but I hope that because I don't want them getting an even stronger grip on every large and small thing judges try to do.

[NewJerseyDem]

11. Not really

It is state judiciary. The people of Massachussetts can overturn their courts with a constitutional amendment. If that passes then there won't be marriage. This is all being done by the states and being handled by the judiciary under state constitutions.

All the courts really do is allow the people to make the final decision because the amendments allow for a referendum on the issue.

The amendment not only prohibits the courts from legalizing gay marriage but also prohibits the legislatures from doing the same thing.

[Deesh]

10. I'd have strong reservations about --

--telling Senator Feingold that he was full of crap on this issue. Bill Frist stood on the floor of the U.S. Senate two weeks ago and said a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage was "a consideration" for 2004. I assume he meant that this would be generated from the U.S. Congress.

Is that not right?

If straight people can't have sex and babies while lesbians and gay men are having sex, I think not even Bill Frist can save them.

Hurray for Feingold.

[Solly Mack]

12. You know, if this matter was handled intelligently

Oh wait...nevermind...This is America. Must never regulate business but must always regulate private lives. My bad...