[Population: One] <A HREF="http://popone.innocence.com/ar

[bryant]

You know, things aren’t going that poorly. I was listening to Dennis and Callahan on WEEI this morning on my way into work; unsurprisingly, they did an hour or so on the gay marriage issues. Dennis was sympathetic, by which I mean he told Callahan that he was a closed-minded idiot for yelling at pro-gay marriage callers, and by which I mean that he said he thought the term “marriage” was important and would strengthen gay couples.

That’s not why I felt all uplifted, though. What I liked was hearing the middle-class Boston accent working class guys call in and say “Yeah, you know, it’s no skin off my back. Let ‘em be married if they wanna.” I liked the guy who called in and said “Look, I was raised by two guys who didn’t happen to be gay, and I came out just fine. What’s wrong with having two father figures in the house?” I liked the guy who called in and said “I’m a conservative Republican, but my son came out to me a couple of years ago and I think he’s right; he should be able to marry another guy if he wants to.”

Go ahead, Finneran. Get a constitutional amendment out in front of people. I don’t think they’ll ratify it.

Comments

[that-cad.livejournal.com]

Wow. I mean, wow. That's probably the most uplifting thing I've heard about the issue since...well...since ever. Like, I'm totally sold on the idea that if this goes to the ballot in 2006 that we're screwed. But maybe we're not after all — if people are talking like this now, in two years maybe we'll win the issue.

[marphod.livejournal.com]

I had a similar experience last night -- some Tuesday nights I curl at The Country Club, and the subject came up at dinner. I was a little scared I'd have to hide under the table, but no one was for the amendment. More than 3/4 of the people in question being staunch republicans including a baptist minister.

[multiplexer.livejournal.com]

Amendments which have failed include:

- The Title Amendment

If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.

- The Slavery Amendment

No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.

- The Child Labor Amendment

Section 1. The Congress shall have power to limit, regulate, and prohibit the labor of persons under eighteen years of age.

Section 2. The power of the several States is unimpaired by this article except that the operation of State laws shall be suspended to the extent necessary to give effect to legislation enacted by the Congress.

- The ERA

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.


- The Washington DC Voting Rights Amendment

Section 1. For purposes of representation in the Congress, election of the President and Vice President, and article V of this Constitution, the District constituting the seat of government of the United States shall be treated as though it were a State.

Section 2. The exercise of the rights and powers conferred under this article shall be by the people of the District constituting the seat of government, and as shall be provided by the Congress.

Section 3. The twenty-third article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 4. This article shall be inoperative, unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.

To ratify the Constitution, you need 3/4ths of the states to vote in favor of the Amendment. The ERA was wildly popular and had broad support -- and failed. If 12 fail to pass it, then it's over.

You know that Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii, Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachutes, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey and Maryland will vote against it. That's 12 right there, and a failed amendment. So what is this? It's an election year Dog and Pony Show pandering to Bush's ultra conservative base.

Re:

[that-cad.livejournal.com]

Yes, what you said is true, but we're just talking state constitutions here. For our state constitution to be amended they only need a majority vote on this occassion, a majority vote this time next year, and then it goes to the ballot where the populace at large can decide.

[head58.livejournal.com]

Out of curiosity, Mr. state AG office guy, what happens if the State constitution is amended in a way that doesn't jibe with Federal law/COnstitutional interpretation? I'm thinking about the proposed civil unions "compromise" and whether it would stand against the separate-but-equal test. Can the Federal govt/Supreme Court trump a State Constitution?

Re:

[marphod.livejournal.com]

States can provide more liberties than the federal, but not less.

To wit: States can make the voting age less than 18, but they cannot make it older. The younger age would not have federal protection, but would have state protection. If a state made the age older, the federal law would trump it and make the law/amendment unenforceable.

Re:

[that-cad.livejournal.com]

The compromise amendment couldn't be overturned by anything federal, and it would survive through any federal amendment to the constitution banning gay marriage (unless said amendment also explicitly banned civil unions, which is [ahem] inconceivable).

But, if the Supreme Court established a ruling that either intentionally or unintentionally invalidated an amendment like the one they're attempting to pass here in Massachusetts, our amendment would be "trumped," for the same reasons that marphod listed above. The federal government / Constitution establishes the absolute "bottom line" for civil rights; the states cannot sink below that bottom line.

Re:

[bryant]

What they said. There's also an article here which discusses the potential legal pitfalls.

[rikibeth.livejournal.com]

I can hear the accents now.

Thank you for that glimpse of hope.

[robotnik.livejournal.com]

What I liked was hearing the middle-class Boston accent working class guys call in and say “Yeah, you know, it’s no skin off my back. Let ‘em be married if they wanna.”

That's always good to hear. Without taking anything away from the activists who brought their case to the Supreme Court, the key to ratifying gay marriage in Canada turned out to be the silent majority who shrugged and said "what do I care?" I'm not saying it's not a serious fight, but in this particular issue I think apathy generally works on the side of progress, and doing a lot of hooting and hollering about the sanctity of marriage could backfire on the reactionary side.

Re:

[jeregenest.livejournal.com]

doing a lot of hooting and hollering about the sanctity of marriage could backfire on the reactionary side

If I had a lot of money (after I was done with the whoring and gambling, but before I'd drunk myself to an early grave on 100+ year old wines) I'd be running a series of commercials that prominently figure every single hardcore rightist thats doing the hollering and all their adulterous affairs, divorces and other crimes against any so-called 'sanctity' of marriage.

It just needs to be done.

US Constitutional Amendments are just never going to happen ina country as rigidly divided as ours. We'll never get an Amendment against burning the flag nor will a sanctity of marriage amendment happen. Its just a political haymaker, as has already been said. The likelihood of getting one passed in Massachusetts is harder for me to forecast, but frankly I don't think it will even make it onto the ballet. Like I've said before we're not fans of direct democracy here in massachusetts (okay our lawmakers aren't at least).