Should the Democrats let the Federal Marriage Amendment slide?

[election_2004]

Time and time again, I've heard some DUers suggest that Democrats must support the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would ban gay marriage as part of the Constitution, or else, according to some of you, apparently the Democratic presidential nominee will have no chance of winning in 2004.

Who here honestly and seriously believes this is the case? It's one thing for a Democrat in office to refrain from supporting same-sex marriage (when taking a position in favor of same-sex marriage would be politically-damaging in his/her district or state).

But do you honestly believe society has deevolved to the point where gay marriage will be the make-or-break political issue of 2004, and Democrats must support the Federal Marriage Amendment or else suffer defeat in the next election?

Remember, it only takes 146 members of the U.S. House to vote down a constitutional amendment, or only 34 members of the U.S. Senate for kill the amendment if it reaches the Senate. I don't see why this would be so unreasonable to do, especially in order to prevent a reactionary, socially-conservative constitutional amendment from moving forward for ratification.

I am not asking Democrats to embrace the concept of same-sex marriage (as national policy) at this point in time. But if the Democrats in Congress don't filibuster and stop FMA from going through, gay people will really have no more reason to vote Democratic - - once you take discrimination based on sexual orientation out of the states' hands and allow the federal government to justify discrimination against LGBT people, it only risks enabling additional civil rights to plummet down a new, unprecedented slippery slope.

Also, if they get away with passing FMA, who knows where they'll stop? How long before we see a constitutional amendment to ban abortion completely? Or a constitutional amendment to mandate prayer in our public schools?

FMA threatens to set a dangerous precedent by superceding states' rights. We always hear Right-Wingers bitching about how we must protect states' rights - - oh, except for when it comes to gay marriage, huh?

If the Democrats let FMA pass, I will NEVER vote for another Democrat (or Republican) ever again! And I doubt I'm the only gay person who feels that way.

[La_Serpiente]

1. Your heart is in the right place

I really don't think that this will every pass the Congress. However, prohibition passed, so why can't this?

There was a hearing the other day in the Senate. 5 Democrats showed up and only 1 Republican showed up. It is telling because if a Senator doesn't want to show up for a hearing, they usually don't want to be associated with the bill.

However, it is encouraging that Democrats are speaking out on this bill. Republicans are making a mistake by allowing only Democrats to speak at the hearing. That way, we can control the debate, not them.

[politicat]

2. I'm (apparently) straight and I'd have to think long and hard about

supporting the Dems if they insisted they had to have it. (I'm bi, but monogamous and married hetero.) I perform gay pairings on a regular basis since my county allows them.

You're not alone. It's time for the Dems to just bite the bullet and force the rest of the country into the 20th century. (I'm willing to be generous.)

No one's going back in the closet. It's time for the foot draggers to stop wearing out their shoes and

GET WITH THE PROGRAM.

Worried about the Vatican? They don't have NBC weapons.

Worried about Robertson, Graham et al getting riled? Those good ole boys get riled up every time they open an envelope that only has a $1 bill in it. Don't worry about them because they're not your supporters anyway.

Worried about normal citizens who think gay marriage somehow threatens hetero marriage? Don't. Most marrieds don't give a good goddam about anybody else's marriage - except those in People magazine.

Sweden is gorgeous this time of year.... wish I spoke swedish.

Politicat

[mermaid]

3. Agree Completely!

And this transgender person will join you in never voting for another Democrat again, if they let FMA slide.

[Peregrine]

4. Here is the plan

The Democratic leadership will take a poll. If it is clear the amendment will fail, they will identify safe representatives/senators to vote against it to ensure failure while freeing all of the others to vote for it.

Now if it appears as if it will pass, you will see most of the Democrats rushing to vote for it.

[Touchdown]

5. Those DUers don't know what they're talking about.

This will be unpopular if Dems vote for it. Look for a mass exodus of gay people from the party if they betray us like with DOMA. If some hee blame Nader for us losing Florida with his 66,000 votes, imagine what 1.5 million gay Floridians voting for someone else will do. Add in their parents and friends, well...

A law is one thing, but a Constitutional Amendment? It has less than a slim chance of passing, so vote it down early, and in 6 months people will forget about it.

[election_2004]

6. You are right, of course

And the main difference between DOMA and FMA is that DOMA was never added to the U.S. Constitution.

DOMA can be changed in the future. But FMA would be permanent. Of course, in theory, it could be repealed. But we all know that the only thing harder than passing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is repealing one.

[Bertha Venation]

15. "Look for a mass exodus of gay people from the party"

"Look for a mass exodus of gay people from the party if they betray us like with DOMA." ???

How about, "Look for a mass exodus of gay people from the United States if they betray us."

[Mikimouse]

7. First of all, I am in complete agreement with the spirit

of the post. I am, however, dismayed that this has become the political issue that it has evolved into. My greatest concern is not whether or not gay marriage is a political 'hot potato', but rather that it is only reasonable that people who are involved in a loving, caring relationship be encouraged to declare it publicly and legally. If our society is so narrow-minded and foolish that such an issue becomes the 'make or break' issue for a politician, then I would suggest that such a politician at least go down fighting and screaming, "why not!!!!!" I am absolutely sick of the politicization of such topics. Politicat is right about most married couples not giving a damn about what other people do, and I would add that it is really none of anyone else's business what people do, in terms of displaying their affection for one another publicly and legally. I hope that this idiotic legislation dies the death it deserves.

[election_2004]

8. BUMP

Doesn't anyone else here care about this issue?

[David__77]

9. It is the absolute responsibility of the Democrats to defeat it.

We need a solid 35% in one house or the other to say "NO!" I think we have this in the house, though I could be wrong. It's much better to stop it in the congress, though we must prepare to identify at least 13 states in which it could be blocked as well, in the case it passes out of congress. It's obvious that same-sex marriage will happen--even in Mississippi or Alabama. It's only a matter of time. Our proper strategizing will result in that being sooner.

I will certainly be have to reevaluate certain things if the leadership is so inept or opportunist as to allow this to pass.

[election_2004]

11. The Right wants a fight, and that's what we need to give them!

Actually, I'm not sure that same-sex marriage will ever happen if this amendment is passed.

If we can prevent this amendment from passing, then I agree that it will be only a matter of time (a couple decades, at most) before same-sex marriage is fully legalized.

We need 146 Democrats (or moderate Republicans) to vote it down in the House.

If it passes the House and reaches the U.S. Senate, we need at least 34 Democrats (or moderate Republicans) to vote it down.

We cannot allow for unanimous consent, otherwise Frist & Chumps will limit debate time for the bill. If there isn't unanimous consent, then the only way to end discussion is with cloture (which requires the support of at least 60 senators) or a quorum call.

We must get Kennedy, Kerry, Edwards, Feinstein, Leahy, and Boxer to lead a mass effort to filibuster this piece of shit, and drag out the debate time until the GOP caves in and agrees to take it off the agenda.

[CivilRightsNow]

10. The Heritage Fundation spawned this idea

Dollars to donuts it is gonna become a reality.

HF suggested that Bush open up a “Office of Marriage Initiatives” to promote marriage, but instead Bush folded HF’s “pro-marriage” proposals into his welfare reform package, setting aside $300 million dollars for states and local communities to “promote marriage.”
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=4287#3

"The Positive Effects of Marriage: A Book of Charts" http://www.heritage.org/Research/Features/Marriage/index.cfm

Why hell, check out the whole section on Heritage's site:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/familybriefingroom.cfm

Heritage VP, Stuart Butler: "Heritage now works very closely with the congressional leadership…. Heritage has been involved in crafting almost every piece of major legislation to move through Congress." Another Heritage VP, Kim Holmes said, "without exaggeration, I think we've in effect become Congress's unofficial research arm…. We truly have become an extension of the congressional staff, but on our own terms and according to our own agenda."

[election_2004]

12. We CAN'T let it happen

It will only open the floodgates for future discrimination via U.S. Constitutional amendments.

[CivilRightsNow]

14. I understand that...

But excuse my cynicism.. Im just trying to give you some facts as I see em. Our voices are lost to our representatives when the heritage foundation and other neo con think tanks are calling the shots. There need to be some fundamental changes to this system... or this is the inevitable conclusion.

Snip...
Through it all, an aggressive and far-reaching media strategy has been central to Heritage. "The objective in the mission statement is to help change policy in America," (Hugh)Newton said during our interview. "Well, you can't do that by just talking only to 535 people . They often react to what media is saying in their home state." His letter to me declared flatly: "Our two primary audiences are Congress and the media." And, indeed, the Heritage media machine has effectively reached out to reporters and pundits across the mainstream political spectrum.
....
http://www.fair.org/extra/9607/heritage.html
*Hugh Newton is public relations council to the Heritage Fundation.

[election_2004]

16. Well then

If people on the Left are just going to sit back and let this happen, I can honestly tell you that I am done with any type of activism whatsoever, in fact, I'll really be done caring in general anymore.

I'll really have no more reason to continue on.

[CivilRightsNow]

17. Im not telling you not to mobilize.

Please do, this an issue close to your heart.

But it isnt an issue that I feel I need to be spending my time on, personally. This would just be a stop gap. I want the beast.

Im honestly not trying to be callous, I wish you the best of luck. But I just feel that we gotta get beyond the pieces of the puzzle and see instead, what the puzzle is.

[election_2004]

18. Do you even realize the consequences of this amendment?

It would not only preclude same-sex marriage from ever being a reality in the United States, but it could also prevent civil unions from being adopted by states. Including revokation of the Vermont civil unions law.

I've written to my congressperson...have you?

[CivilRightsNow]

20. Yes, I do.

No, I havent. Because again. This is an amendment that I agree with in parts and disagree with in parts.

I am not a supporter of civil unions and same sex marriage. Im not an opponent of it either. It is fringe to me.

You might also want to tell your congressperson to stop being a mouthpeice for the right wing think tanks.

Again, I wish you luck.

[election_2004]

21. I don't think you do

My congressman is Ron Kind, who is a moderate Democrat.

You may not care about gay issues, and that's fine. But I'm assuming there are political issues that you do care about. If this amendment passes, it won't be long before they come after some of the issues that are important to you, by trying to weave them into future U.S. Constitutional Amednments. The passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment would make it a lot easier for them to make the case to do this.

I also find it strangely ironic how someone whose screen name is "CivilRightsNow" isn't even a supporter of civil unions. Exactly what types of civil rights do you support?

[CivilRightsNow]

23. Okay dokey...

You may think whatever you wish :)

I did not say I opposed the unions, but yes I dont support them. There are some things that I simply do not believe in personally. But I believe that everyone has the right to speak out about the issues that effect them and support changes for those issues. I will not oppose them in those changes as long as their rights dont conflict with mine.

I support many types of civil rights, based upon my personal beliefs. I do not fall into the pollyanna syndrome of the liberal left in feeling that I cannot have my own personal opinions on each unique issue.

As for my nick, it was picked largely because Im a woman. It again, doesnt mean I have to support everything that everyone labels a "Civil" right.

[election_2004]

24. so then...

...which types of civil rights do you strongly believe in?

What are some of the issues you've fought for?

[CivilRightsNow]

25. well,

Id think the last sentence of my post you responded to would do a little defining for you. So, Ill just consider this baiting. I dont need to qualify myself.

Goodness gracious.

Ciao!

[election_2004]

26. Obviously you're for women's rights...

I'm merely curious as to what particular causes/issues you've worked on? Supporting the ERA, maintaining the right to choose, working to combat violence against women...

I really am interested in hearing about your work.

[mrgorth]

13. No more laying down!

We have to stand up for what we believe in.

[adriennel]

19. brilliant, thanks!

we should learn from the prohibition amendment (and subsequent amendment to repeal prohibition) that we cannot allow our Constitution to be amended as a result of passionate and temporary controversy. temperance became popular, so we amended the Constitution. however, the popularity of temperance did not last long, and now we are stuck with two stupid and unnecessary amendments to our Constitution.

same goes with the FMA. they can make it a constitutional amendment, but this will not affect the fact that gay people exist and deserve equal protection under the law. passing the FMA will only result in a subsequent amendment nullifying the first.
remember the Simpsons episode: Parade Marcher: "we're here, we're queer, get used to it!" Lisa: "we are used to it. you do this every year!" Queer rights are here, they're not going away, so all the FMA supporters "need to get used to it".

plus, we still have no ERA. why is there more discussion on anti-flag burning and federal marriage amendments than one on equal rights for all citizens?

I will not vote for any candidate that supports the FMA, nor will I vote for any candidate that does not believe gay people deserve the same rights as straight people, and this includes a personal union (or marriage, if you will.) I will not let this issue go simply for the purpose of winning the election in 2004. Everyone has the right to prioritize

[election_2004]

22. thank you

*hugs*

[Silverhair]

27. Brutal facts of life.

Sometimes life ain't fair, and sometimes it ain't fun. Sometimes life deal out hard lumps. This is one of them.

Most of the support for Gay Marriage comes from the Left. Self identified Democrats make up about 35% of the population. 66% of the general population is against gay marriage. That 2 to 1 against. That means that after you leave the left part of the spectrum, the rest of the country turns very strongly against it.
Gay form only about 2% of the population. (I know that various gay organizations like to claim 10%, but all the best studies, and marketing data are consistent with the 2% figure.)

It gets worse. Among blacks the opposition to gay marriage is 75%. I don't have figures for Latinos, but it is probably extremely high against. Latinos are almost all Roman Catholic, and that church is very strong against it. Further, Latino culture has a lot of machismo to it, and that concept is hostile towards gays. Sorry, but that is a fact.

House members are up for reelection every cycle. Good luck finding that 146 Democrats that want to go back to the home district and explain that vote to Joe & Jane 6-pack. Karl Rove would love nothing better than that.

Senate. We have more members us for re-election this cycle than they do. Same deal. Karl would love for us to filibuster this one.

Presidental signature. Even Clinton signed the federal DOMA.

Is it an important issue? It is a strongly emotional "hot button" issue that is starkly black/white, high contrast. Either you are for gay marriage or against it.

The brutal political fact of life is that if the Democratic Party pushes gay marriage at this time, it will commit political suicide.

My analysis DOES NOT mean that I am advocating the FMA pass. It does mean that I think it will be a slam-dunk for the Reps. I am simply looking at the facts.

[election_2004]

28. So the Dems can't oppose FMA?

The GOP leadership in Congress are the ones pushing the issue by trying to put it on the legislative agenda.

All the Democrats have to do is point out that FMA is a blatant violation of states' rights.

[Silverhair]

29. Strong Democratic opposition to the FMA would be a present

to Karl Rove. This is a fight that we can't win. To try to fight it will be suicide. It is that simple.

[election_2004]

31. Silverhair...

What makes you so certain that the supposed 66% that you cite would prioritize gay marriage as their deciding election issue, rather than health care, taxes, or education?

If Karl Rove keeps talking about gay marriage and ignoring the *more important* issues, then that will make Rove look bad - - and it will also reflect badly on Bush.

[Silverhair]

34. It works on a precentage.

This election, like all elections, will be decided by the swing voters. Sorry, but that it another one of those brutal facts of political life. THE SWING VOTERS DECIDE ELECTIONS.

This is a strongly emotional "hot button" issue. It will turn more of the swing voters against us than it will turn for us. And of course there will be some that won't care.

Do you remember how Dukikis was clobbered by the "Willie Horton" issue? It didn't make Bush look silly then. National Security was the primary issue in the campaign, as it always was in the cold war, but there were other issues too.

Prediction: If the activists are able to make gay marriage a part of the platform, WE LOSE BIG!!!

To predict something does not mean that I desire that which I predict.

[eileen_d]

36. But I think there is a difference

Opposing the amendment is not the same as supporting gay marriage. You can oppose gay marriage while recognizing that a Constitutional amendment is unnecessary and/or wrong.

[election_2004]

41. That's exactly what I'm saying mainstream Democrats should do!

You go, Eileen! :) *hugs*

Daschle, Reid, Lincoln, and Murray don't support gay marriage...but that doesn't mean they need to go to the extreme of amending the U.S. Constitution in order to win reelection. Voters in South Dakota, Nevada, Arkansas, and Washington state are going to care more about local issues directly affecting their lives - - they could care less about whether gay couples in Vermont (or even in their own states) are entering civil unions.

Although I disagree with those moderate Democrats' stances against same-sex marriage, I believe they would most likely support civil unions. It should be pointed out that FMA would be interpreted to ban civil unions, including the revokation of Vermont's existing civil unions law.

All the Democrats have to do is point out how FMA is a blatant violation of states' rights (even though I personally don't believe marriage should be a state-by-state issue), and they can also add that it's an authoritarian Big Government policy that would extend the federal government's reach into violating states' sovereignty.

[election_2004]

40. Where's your evidence for "anti-gay" sentiments among swing voters?

Regarding Willie Horton, the death penalty is a much more divisive issue than gay marriage, and it crosses ideological lines (some on the Left support it, and some on the Right oppose it).

If swing voters cared so much about going out of their way to humiliate and degrade gay people, then they wouldn't be swing voters in the first place - - they would be loyal partisan Republicans or else members of the Constitution Party.

[eileen_d]

30. The Democrats should NOT let this slide

I don't care what the statistics are on the "majority" of Americans are opposing gay marriage... I can't believe that a majority thinks we need a consitutional amendment to "protect" it. Maybe I'm naiive but for pete's sake, a constitutional amendment flying in the face of NUMEROUS state decisions? Dems need to fight on this or what the hell is the point?

[election_2004]

32. Exactly! FUCKING EXACTLY!

I swear, the defeatism here and everywhere else makes me want to kill myself. Literally.

I'm not kidding - - I probably will no longer be a part of this world if FMA passes. I just won't be able to emotionally deal with living in a world where are government has decided to permanently make gay people second-class citizens.

[Silverhair]

33. Numerous state decisions???

I realize for you that this is very important. But never let you emotions cloud your ability to accurately analyze, which is what you are doing. Do you realize that 37 states have DOMAs. Another state would have had a DOMA but the Democratic governor vetoed it. The Reps will certainly try to use that against him next election. If the amendment went to the states for ratification the states with DOMAs would almost certainly ratify it. Then only one more state would be needed.

Numerous polls have been made. The general population is 2-1 against gay marriage. That is a fact. If the Democratic Party tried to push gay marriage right now, Karl Rove would have fits of joy.

In politics, like in war, you have to pick and chose the fights.

Look, we just lost a big Medicare fight, and you think we could win a gay marriage fight??

[eileen_d]

35. I admit I didn't know about the state DOMA things

But I don't see this as a fight FOR gay marriage as much as I see it as a fight AGAINST criminalizing something that should not be criminalized. And I see it as a core Democratic issue.

I resent that you think that I am making a purely emotional argument. I think there have been great advances in gay rights over the past years (despite the DOMA laws) and that a federal marriage amendment is giving the federal government way, way too much power over the civil rights of Americans.

That said, let me deploy and emotional argument and invite you and Karl Rove to bite my ass. Democrats should not stop being Democrats just because they are facing opposition.

[election_2004]

42. It isn't just about "gay marriage"....

Since FMA refers to "marriage and its legal incidents" being restricted to that between one man and one women, "its legal incidents" could also be interpreted and extended to banning civil unions. Why should the Democrats (or Republicans) just sit back and allow the federal government to revoke the rights of people in Vermont who've already entered into civil unions that were passed by the Vermont state legislature?!

Oh, fuck it! - - so Democrats are going to sacrifice us faggots for political convenience! Great...so I'm curious who your party is going to stand up for? Or, if you're not going to defend the rights of anyone, then how do you expect to win the next election regardless of whether FMA passes or not?

I'd really like to hear your campaign strategy, Silverhair...

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[AntiCoup2K4]

38. Welcome to DU, Senator Hatch!

Don't worry, I'm sure the church will still let you marry the dead women, so you'll have multiple wives in Heaven ;-)

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

43. The right thing to do

It seems a quaint idea in this time of political expediency, "moving to the middle", "recapturing the south", "being pragmatic", and all of the rest of the usual advice promoted by the DLC and "win at any cost" Democrats. We have seen where avoidance of simply doing the right thing has landed the infamous 4 "realists" and their "smart" vote on the war.

Sometimes, and I believe that this is one of those times, the politicians that WE elect should simply do the right thing for no other reason than that it is the right thing.

They should vote, filibuster, whatever, to stop the FMA and expose it for what it is. A quasi-religious act of bigotry.

[election_2004]

44. Now the question is...

What's the best way to get the Democratic leadership to "do the right thing"?