Would an ammendment outlawing Gay Marriage pass?

[fujiyama]

Is there enough support in enough state legistlatures to get that thing go through?

[Birthmark]

1. No.

Once actual debate on the amendment and its implications began, it's silliness would become readily apparent and the thing would die the slow death of neglect. Rightfully so.

[POed_Ex_Repub]

2. I seriously doubt it would pass

This is wedge issue hot air politics... just keep repeating to yourself "It's an election year, It's an election year"

[Syrinx]

3. Probably

In my opinion, gay people should push for the civil unions, but let the marriage thing go. It's only semantics at that point, but those are the semantics that are going to cause untold damage to the Democratic party, harming gay people, but also the well-being of every relative of those gay people. I'm all for equal rights for homosexuals, but a one-party fascist state is going to be very unfriendly to homosexuals, and everyone else too.

[Solomon]

52. perfectly said about the semantics.

Gays will get the same benefits incidental to marriage because if the legislatures won't do it, the courts will. You HAVE to give the same benefits to civil unions, as you do for marriages, or else you're discriminating. Beyond that, it becomes a word game, which I think gays hurt themselves by pursuing.

[Ediacara]

4. no

[Blue-Jay]

5. No way!

There's only been one amendment that passed which restricted our rights, and we know what happened with that one.

[Syrinx]

7. prohibition wasn't in Bush's America

[booley]

6. No oen thought prohibition would pass...

..but it did. So while I like to think not. I am not taking an chances.

regardless, it wil still get ugly. Reactionsim alsways is and the repub leadership and freepers for the most part are nothing but reactionaries...

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in Large groups!

[neebob]

8. I'm afraid it might

because it's about preserving the status quo and preventing a group of people from obtaining rights, rather than ensuring those rights - which, by my read, are already provided in the Constitution. But, as another poster said, never underestimate the power of large groups of stupid people.

[Lexingtonian]

9. No, probably

My sense is that public opinion is changing just quickly enough to, um, head it off.

This year seems to me the last year in which it really has a chance to succeed. But, as pointed out, it's an election year and no state legislator really wants to deal with something as problematic as this before election day.

[togiak]

10. Many States

I think it would pass in many states. Unfortunately, the polls are showing that a majority in most states want to see marriage defined as between a man and woman. Though demographically that is changing.

It's a political issue and I think that the religious right is going to come out in droves for this one. It's a pretty polarizing issue but I'm not sure how important it is going to be to the people in the middle of the spectrum.

I hope that it doesn't pass the states and I hope that it doesn't pass the US congress.

[countmyvote4real]

11. 39 states have already banned gay marriage.

Outside of this forum it doesn't look good to me at this time. But the times are a changing. Thank you, Mass SSC. Thank you, Mayor of SF and local judges for your rebellion. I'm inspired.

It will take the courts to examine this. And guess what?

Equal is equal or it's not.

[kayell]

14. One of the best things about Newsomes rebellion

is the constant stream of images that the American public is seeing of joyous, loving gay couples.

Gee, maw, those don't look like raving children corrupting maniacs. That old lady looks a lot like granny! And look, there's someone who looks like cousin Kate. Wait, that IS cousin Kate!

[Atlant]

24. :-)

> And look, there's someone who looks like cousin Kate.
> Wait, that IS cousin Kate!

:)

Atlant

[shimmergal]

48. You're right. Paradoxically, coverage of the marriages in San Francisco

is already working, I believe, to turn the pro-civil unions position
into the moderate, mainstream one.

I've already seen this happen with some people close to me, whose previous opposition to gay marriage was the one chink in their otherwise liberal beliefs.

This is a plus, whether the ultimate goal is gay marriage or the conversion of all state-certified marriages to civil unions. It's the well-known phenomenon where if somebody actually has the courage to act on a hitherto "outrageous" idea, slightly less radical adherents become middle-of-the-road.

[Silverhair]

16. The courts won't be of any help.

Once it is in the consititution - that's it. Game over as far as the courts are concerned. You can't declare part of the constitution to be unconstitutional.

[jonnyblitz]

12. i think it would.

backlash occurs when gay issues are in the news constantly.

[roguevalley]

13. I don't think so. The constitution is sort of an inviolate document.

[Gadave]

15. If it gets 2/3 vote in congress....

There is no way it WON'T pass.

In the legislatures you only need a majority vote in just 3/4 of the states. It would only be a matter of time, since polls suggest the adverage voter supports it.

The key, as always, is to stop it in Congress.

I wish conservatives would view Constitution desecration in the same vein as they view a piece of cloth with 50 stars and a few stripes.

[blondeatlast]

19. They did in the '70s, with the ERA.

We have to remind them of that!

[Gadave]

27. The ERA is not the same

The ERA was a fight for social change (which most people resist). The marriage amendment crap is to preserve the status quo (which most people support).

Also, the ERA scared people because if taken to one extreme it could create a society many people would not like. (How would you like unisex bathrooms in govenment buildings?) Whether or not that would happen is not my point, but if people fear it, they are not going to support the amendment.

[LeahMira]

40. You could also say...

... that the ERA was a fight to preserve the status quo. The issue of women in combat situations was one that was considered as a real possibility at the time. People were having a fit at the very thought. Now, though, if the women want to fight George W., the devout religious conservative, will happily let them. I guess "morality" all depends on the situation, eh?

Frankly, I wouldn't mind unisex bathrooms if you men would please try not to pee on the seat. :-)

[Gadave]

41. OOOOHHHH

Try NOT to. Seeing it in writing for the first time makes me realize I was missing the not in that sentense. I was in blissful ignorance. I just remembered something about peeing on the seat.

[shimmergal]

49. We already have unisex bathrooms.

Check out the "family bathrooms" in a lot of department stores. Some of the casinos here in L.V. also have small bathrooms that can be used by both sexes, mostly for couples where a disabled partner needs help.

As long as these are in addition to the regular "men" and "women" bathrooms, there's no problem. It's just like having a ramp along with stairs, or handicapped parking places in addition to regular ones.

Having to share a multi-booth bathroom (much less a large bathroom without dividers) would be something else. Most of us _wouldn't_ like it!

Sorry for the side excursion into bathrooms. Really, I'm not obsessed with them!

[blondeatlast]

53. Just gotta say--"Family" rooms came out about the same time

my son was born, and they are the greatest thing since a knife was introduced to bread.

[dusty64]

17. No, I really

think it would not pass in 18 - 22 states and I believe it needs 36 or 37.

[Gadave]

20. Here are the states i think will pass it, alphabetically

I base this on 2 rules of thumb. The more southern or mountain a state is the more likely I gave it a Y. The more MA or CA a state is I gave it a N.

AL Y
AK Y
AZ Y
AR Y
CA N
CO ?
CT N
DE N
FL Y
GA Y

HA N
ID Y
IL ?
IN Y
IA Y
KS Y
KY Y
LA Y
ME ?
MD Y

MA N
MI Y
MN N
MS Y
MO Y
MT Y
NB Y
NV ?
NH ?
NJ N

NM Y
NY N
NC Y
ND Y
OH Y
OK Y
OR ?
PA ?
RI N
SC Y

SD Y
TN Y
TX Y
UT Y
VT N
VA Y
WA N
WV Y
WI Y
WY Y

32 Y, 11 N, 7 ?

Thats right on the edge. Remember it only takes a majority vote of the legislature, and that means the entire South, most of the midwest, most of the mountain states, and I would not be surprised if NY didn't go for it. They are even debating this in MA, so that should show you that even very liberal places are fighting about it. Lansing MI, Miami FL, Cincinnati OH, Baltimore MD and Madison Wisconsin are not San Fran CA.

[blondeatlast]

25. It would NOT pass in AZ; even if it did, Napolitano would veto it,

I'm reasonably sure.

We have a couple of openly gay state legislators, too, both of whom are Repubs and consistently uphold gay rights (and get re-elected!).

[Gadave]

28. I used rules of thumb

Which means they may be inaccurate, but I am not so sure NY would not ratify it (they did elect Pataki governor).

If I remember the Constitution correctly I think it only requires the legislatures to act, not the governor. Here is the text :

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.


I am not an expert on this, but from my reading, a case could be made that no governor is necessary.

[David__77]

51. Governors cannot veto this sort of thing.

It's a legislative vote only.

[blondeatlast]

54. I didn't know that. Thanks. nt

[LeahMira]

43. Don't think so...

DE N

Sorry to have to admit this, but Delaware already has a law banning gay marriage. We had a huge fight over at least two years just to get a law preventing discrimination in hiring in Delaware. The religious of almost all stripes really came out of the woodwork to pressure our legislators to continue discrimination against gays... some of the most nasty stuff you'd ever want to hear made it onto the legislative floor. The northern part of the state is pretty evenly split on the issue... could go either way... but the southern part of the state, more rural, generally less well educated, and generally feeling that because their population is smaller, their voices are never heard, is dead set against gay marriage. Some of our legislators are doofuses also. The southern part of the state is changing demographically, but only gradually. If an amendment banning gay marriage were to come here for a vote right now, without unified, strong opposition from the more populated areas, it would pass.

Five years down the road, an amendment banning gay marriage would probably be defeated, not only here but everywhere. Right now, though, the critical mass doesn't exist. It's coming along, but it isn't here yet. That's why Bush is flying this thing. He'd love to get an amendment through before attitudes change, to stop the discussion if he can.

We have a young man who is gay in our family and he and his husband had a commitment ceremony presided over by an Episcopalian minister. Our family is totally accepting of the situation and so is his husband's mother, but his husband's father still won't accept it. Still, I think there are enough families of gays and lesbians out there, and those of us who can need to stand up next to our family members and support them and let out voices be heard along with theirs. Since our family has become more sort of personally involved and aware, I think we are all pretty shocked and frightened at all the hate out there. I know that when that stuff is directed at someone I love, I'm not going to let it pass. How dare they!

[Gadave]

45. Wow

That surprises me about DE.

However, I think only CA and MA are definite nos. It is a masterful issue for the repukicons. It is an issue very popular with the the American public, but it also divides the Dems cause Dems are not the monolithic ditto heads thats they are. Dems from CA are not the same as dems from Ohio or New York. Except for a few, a puke is a puke.

Anything to distract from real issues is the only way they can win. Who cares if the Commander in Sleeze is a deserter during time of war (Vietnam), or that he and his cronies profiteering on a current war. Who cares about all that when we can spend countless hours debating this stupid amendments. (Maybe they can add it as a rider to a flag burning amendment and make it a two-fer).

[blondeatlast]

18. Three words: Equal Rights Amendment.

It didn't pass, and I hope to hell this won't either.

Before anyone flames: I campaigned hard, even at my tender age, for the ERA to pass.

I truly think many will be afraid of adding another amendment to the Constitution, which was the objection of a few sincere anti-ERA types (a lot of insincere ones jumped on that bandwagon, though).

[Silverhair]

21. That wasn't the argument against the ERA.

The main argument that was used against the ERA was that it was overly broad and didn't leave room for the law to recognize the genuine difference between men and women. Plus it wanted to make changes to society.

The FMA, as another poster pointed out, seeks to stop social change.

And 39 states already have DOMAs. If it gets out of congress - IT WILL PASS.

[blondeatlast]

26. It wsn't the MAIN argument, but it was an argument put forth against it.

I heard it zillions of times from people who couldn't put up another rational argument against it.

I think the lessons learned should be applied here and pushed back into the faces of the proponents. We need to learn from the mistakes that were made in order to STOP this amendment.

[skippysmom]

31. I thought it was the fear of unisex toilets

that doomed the ERA?

;)

[Silverhair]

36. No, that was a strawman argument used by supporters. n/t

[Atlant]

22. There's plenty of support in the State Legislatures.

(And *probably* enough support in the House and Senate.)

Atlant

[mike1963]

23. I'm afraid there might be. Okla passed a house res yesterday in favor,

UNANIMOUSLY. Goes to the senate in a day or 2.
:grr:

[Estragon]

29. Here in MA,

Only six (out of a hundred) state senators are Republicans.

But every vote on gay marriage amendments has been evenly divided, in both chambers of congress, to within six to eight votes. In a supposedly liberal state.



I don't know....

[Atlant]

30. I do (know).

> I don't know...

I do (know).

It happens because few Democrats have the courage of
their convictions.

If they did, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now.

(And, more specifically applying to Massachusetts,
it's because Tom Finneran, the Speaker of the House
by God Given Right (or so he believes) is an evil
person who keeps a stranglehold on the Mass State
House. And who, incidentally, oposes many ordinary
Democratic positions including support for gay rights.)

Atlant

[Kathy in Cambridge]

35. Finneran and Romney were forming an allaince on this

I hate Finneran almost as much as Gov. Goodhair.

[Atlant]

50. I hate Finneran more. He's a hypocrite whereas with Romney, ...

I dislike Finneran on a much more fundamental level than I dislike
Romney. Finneran is a power-hungry tin-plated tyrant hypocrite
whereas with Romney, he's pretty much just doing what he said he
would do (which is to be a typical asshole Republican chief executive).

People voted for Romney even so, apparently expecting him to be William
Weld, but no, this guy's a real Republican.

Atlant

[Kathy in Cambridge]

34. Welcome to DU, Fellow Masshole!

:hi:

The scary part about the Mass legislature is that quite a few conservative Dems voted for the amendment and some of the Republicans were for gay marriage. Finneran and Travis are social conservatives. Sprague (R) and the Republican from Pittsfield whose name escapes me are social liberals. Massachusetts is a weird state sometimes...

[skippysmom]

32. I think it's an even shot to pass

A 3/4 majority of states have passed "defense of marriage" laws, which makes me think they would support this amendment. And I think it has a good shot to make it through Congress.

What gives me hope is that passing amendments can take a long time. I'm hoping that in that time, people will become more reflective -- and if they see gay marriages in SF and MA they'll realize it's not the end of the republic.

But who knows?

[terrya]

33. Yes, this could pass.

There's just enough support in the country right now to do this.

God help me I hope I'm wrong.

Terry

[Blue-Jay]

37. I think you're wrong, Terry.

Passing a shitty state law is much easier than amending the Constitution.

The whole idea is (I think) a big fucking smokescreen anyway. Bush & Co are trying to bring their idiot voting base back to the fold. The ones that are feeling more and more like staying home in November. This faux-amendment hasn't a chance in hell of passing.

[foreigncorrespondent]

39. But the trouble is...

...Terry is right. There just isn't enough support from the left to try and stop this from happening.

Us queers are getting told constantly that this is a wedge issue, or this is the one issue that will help Bush* win the election. With people on the left having attitudes like that, the queer community hasn't a hope in hell of stopping the FMA.

The left have played right into the hands of the repukes, by giving them attitudes like that. All that has done is split the left wide open.

[Blue-Jay]

44. Well, "you queers" have my support.

I've already fired off several emails to my own irresponsible state Reps, and I'm trying to keep a close eye on the issue. That said, I still think that an amendment passing is unlikely at best. I hope I'm right.

[foreigncorrespondent]

46. Blue-Jay...

...I know we have your support. I tend to keep an eye on posts that are very pro gay. And ofr your support, I thank you. Thankfully, you are not in the minority here on DU. Meaning the majority of members are truly wonderful.

[terrya]

47. Thank you, Blue-Jay.

As you saw with my post, I'm sort of pessimistic about the consitutional amendment.

But it's very heartening to you that we have good friends like you supporting us.

Thank you
Terry

[Brian Sweat]

38. Gay marrage is a wedge issue for the Republicans.

The last thing they want to do is resolve it.

[mondo joe]

42. The Reason it Won't Pass

I thik on the whole people are very resistant to actually amend the Constitution.

But here's the bigger reason: The language will never be agreed upon in a way that will pass.

The far right will never agree to any language that will permit recognition of civil unions. And I think the moderates and left will not - in sufficient numbers - agree to an amendment that absolutely denies any recognition for gay cuples.

[arewethereyet]

55. its very close, the SF and MASS actions could make it happen