The Constitution, *, and GLBT folks....

[Liberalboy]

I found this on-line....you are almost thankful that the founding fathers made it this hard to amend the constitution. Do you think they can get a anti-gay marriage amendment passed????

The Amendment Process

There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how it can be amended. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both halves of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be approved by three-fourths of states. The amendment as passed may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention.

It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification.

[foreigncorrespondent]

1. Well...

...IIRC 37 states already have their own DoMAs in place, so they won't have any problems getting three-fourths of the states to agree to this.

The only problem (for them) I do see happening is, the time frame. This isn't going to pass overnight. Basically fairly soon we are going to see same sex marriages happening in Mass. What are they going to do, pass this discriminating Amendment, which they said is there to protect the "santity" of marriage, and then force the GLBT folks that have gotten married to get a divorce? That is a contradiction on their part.

In all honesty though, yes I can see this passing. In the current climate, there really is no separation of church and state. There are a lot of haters out there, thanks to the likes of Bush*, Falwell, Robertson, Phelps, et al, for spreading their vicious crap about what being gay is all about.

All I know is something has to be done to stop the hatred people have for the queer community, I just don't know what that something is.

[kenny blankenship]

2. Less concerned about Bush than KERRY

1) If Bush announces support for anti-gay Constitutional Amendment,
Democrats will fight him and be more or less united in opposition to the Amendment as they are united in opposing Bush.

2) If John Kerry announces support for anti-gay Constitutional Amendment,
many Democrats will go along. Why?
a) because they don't really care about what happens to people unlike themselves,
b) and they just want Kerry to be elected.

Kerry and his lack of committment to civil rights is therefore the bigger threat to the gay and lesbian community. Strange but true.

Here's what "liberal" Senator John Kerry has done so far.

Stated his rejection of the recent Massachusetts Supreme Court decision requiring no half measures in the recognition of full civil rights for homosexuals.

Stated he is "opposed to gay marriage, period."

Endorsed an amendment to the Massachusetts State Constitution which would ban gay marriage and make homosexuals an officially discriminated class of citizens.

"They" most certainly can get an Anti-Gay amendment to the US Constitution passed if the two most visible politicians of both parties are for it.

It is clear that very dangerous times are creeping up on gay people in America. And while we've been focussed exclusively on the threats made by Republicans, a new source of danger has arisen from the Democratic Party. John Kerry anxious to prove himself a centrist is about to throw us to the wolves. He wants to do it without us noticing it, and he's begun quietly. When he secures the Democratic Party nomination, he will betray us openly to court disaffected Bush voters. The Amendment you worry about could pass in that kind of "consensus" atmosphere.

Before Kerry begins to feel secure in his grip on the nomination, it is absolutely imperative that the gay community receive Kerry's public promise that he will oppose an Anti-Gay Amendments to the US Constitution and also, that he reverse his position on the proposed Amendment to the State Consitution of Massachusetts.

They can't get there without us! We can't let people who want our support our votes and money stab us in the back.