Bush and his Amendment.

[Old and In the Way]

Does anyone know if he spoke about this issue at all in 2000? I'd assume that someone so deeply disturbed about this issue must have had some strong opinions (or at least an opinion) in 2000 when he was campaigning.

Why do I think that this is another new found problem that was not part of his 2000 campaign?

[La_Serpiente]

1. He said it should be left up to the states

that is all over now.

[BruinAlum]

2. I thought I saw a thread somewhere last night about the difference in his

stand from 2000 and now. If I see it again I'll post it here.

[johncoby2]

3. Gay marriage is a key to voter turnout....think about it..

Do they have time to pass it in DC and then in all the states by Nov? And if so, could the vote for the states be in November in order to increase voting especially for the right?

Great GOTV idea. Typical of bush.

[DarkPhenyx]

4. Another point would be...

...does he really care if it passes or not? All of us were looking for OBL to be the joker in the deck for the election. This, however, could very well be it. At 3/4 of the states needed for ratification there is a string chance that it will fail, even if it leaves DC. It will, however, mend many fences with disaffected portions of his electorate. If it passes or not he can always say "I tried, but the people decided" and he is still a hero. It's a win/win for him.

[Silverhair]

7. 39 states have DOMAs.

Please explain to me why the 39 states that already have DOMAs will not vote to ratify the FMA.

[OKNancy]

14. Cost?

Unless it was bundled in the general election, if there was a special election, I wonder how much it would cost states? States can't even pay for roads and education and a million other things. If I were a state legislator, I'd use this approach first.

[Silverhair]

20. Cost??? What cost? There isn't a special election for it.

The state legislature votes on it, just like they do other bills.

[yellowcanine]

16. Because they want it left to the states?

Besides, before it goes to the states, it has to be passed by a 2/3 vote in both the house and senate. Right now the chances appear slim. Even strong allies of Bush (Tom Delay) are questioning whether an amendment is the way to go at this time, before the federal DOMA has even been tested in court. This is not going to fly and Bush knows that. It is a bone to his base, and a reluctant bone at that. Bush says gays can have civil unions , just not marriage. However, for many on the religious right that is not acceptable. This is also a flipflop from the Bush position of 2000. The fact that Bush had to do this now is a sign that he is having trouble shoring up his base. This will not do that if Bush doesn't push the amendment strongly, which he won't, because there are many swing voters opposed to this. Constitutional amendments are fraught with peril, as Bush is going to find out. I think he may have just lost the election.

And by the way, the polls have been all over the place on this. It depends a lot on how the questions are asked. This in itself suggests that the country is closely divided - or many have not really made up their mind on it. One thing is pretty clear, however - there is nowhere near a 2/3 majority in favor of a constitutional amendment - which means there should not be one. Amending the constitution to limit rights when at most a bare majority favors it is a recipe for civil unrest. Check out the 18th amendment if you don't believe me.

[Silverhair]

21. What percentage of the population WANTS to marry someone of the same sex?

I submit that the percentage that wants to have a same sex marriage is far far less than the percentage that wants to have a beer after a day's work, or a nice wine in a nice restaurant. The 18th tried to change society. The proposed FMA will be trying to keep society from changing. Big difference between the two.

[yellowcanine]

23. What percent has a family member or friend that is gay or lesbian?

One reason women have the rights they do is because fathers have daughters. Think about it. If you have a lesbian or gay son or daughter are you going to support taking away rights from them?

[DarkPhenyx]

17. "States rights" or starters.

Another would be that an amendment to the constitution is a completely different thing than passing a law in your states. Third thing is that, if I am not mistaken, you need a 2/3 vote in each state for the state to ratify the amendment. I might be wrong on that last part. However getting 2/3 of the entire population of the US to vote for an amendment is much harder than getting a simple majority. Simple majority is all you need to pass a law.

[Silverhair]

22. You are wrong. The state legislatures do NOT need a super majority.

The state legislatures treat it as they would any other piece of legislation. Simple majority vote is sufficient with the Governors signature.

The legislatures incentive to pass the FMA would be to prevent their own state laws from being overturned by activist judges.

[DarkPhenyx]

24. What's an activist judge?

Thank you for correcting my error.

[Old and In the Way]

9. Seems that it will be ultimately counter-productive for his re-election.

I have no doubt that this will firm up support by the RW Religious fundies, but he already had that segment. How does this help him with the Indies/Undecided moderates? I think the more the American people think about this issue, the less sense this position makes.
People know there are real issues and problems, but gay civil unions aren't on the radar screen. They also know gays have been around since forever, so why the big political push now?

Partisan politics obviously....but I really think that this could backfire, bigtime. I think it will just energize even more people who fear a theocratic state to motivate and vote for sanity in our government.

[DarkPhenyx]

18. There are a lot of indies and moderates...

that are against homosexual marraige. He is also leaving open the "domestic partner" issue, which will win more of them over.

Asolutely it could backfire on him. I don't think it is horribly likely to do so though.

[BruinAlum]

5. No, and that was never their intention

It was meant to rally the religious right and the bigot vote in November, nothing more. Being used as a wedge issue.

[Art_from_Ark]

11. You got that right

The right-wingers are champions at driving wedge issues. They disgust me to no end.

[Silverhair]

8. The amendment giving the vote to the 18 year olds

went through both houses and was ratified in just over three months. How many months to the Nov election?

[newyawker99]

26. Hi johncoby2!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Silverhair]

6. The MA supreme court put it on the radar.

It was a very minor issue, until the prospect of a few judges making it legal over the objections of the overwhelming majority of the populace made it a high visibility issue.

And the brutal fact is that 77% of the general population opposes gay marriage. Whether they are morally right or wrong is beside the point. When the judicial system tries to go against those kind of numbers on a hot button issue, YOU WILL GET A BIG BACKLASH.

And this backlash will be strong enough to put amend the constitution, and give Bush 4 more years and a filibuster proof Senate in the bargin.

[Paschall]

10. Gotta link?

I believe that 77% figure you quote is highly inflated.

In a recent Zogby poll in Massachussetts, "respondents opposed the constitutional amendment, by a split of 49-48 percent. It also didn't mention that poll respondents, by a margin of 48-46, did not want lawmakers to prevent marriage licenses from being issued to homosexual couples in May, when the Supreme Judicial Court decision legalizing gay marriage takes effect."

http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/7673961.htm

From another source: "The {Jan. 2004 ABCNEWS/Washington Post} poll reports only 38 percent of Americans favor a constitutional ban on marriage rights for gays and lesbians, while 58 percent believe the matter should be left up to the states. Majorities of Americans are opposed to the amendment in all regions of the country as well.

"More than half of Americans - 56 percent - also feel that it should not be the role of the federal government to promote marriage between men and women according to the poll. In addition, 52 percent of Republicans also oppose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. ... Two polls in October and November by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found 51 percent opposition to the amendment."

http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Press_Room&CONTENTID=15523&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm

[Silverhair]

12. Current issue of Newsweek magazine.

March 1, 2004 issue, page 41. Only 23% support gay marriage. OK, I will grant that I am interpreting the rest as opposed, but that will range from barely opposed to rabid.

But if you are trying to carry and issue with only 23% support, you are in trouble.

[OKNancy]

15. 23% support it, but how many people really want this in the

friggin' CONSTITUTION. Leave the Constitution alone is my motto.

I just can't get over people who want to put private behavior laws in the Constitution. It was tried with prohibition....didn't work.

[Silverhair]

19. I think the desire for booze is much more universal than

desire to marry someone of the same sex is. The portion of the population that is so strongly gay that they would want to have a same sex marriage is only about 2 or 3%. If prohibition had effected only that same level of percentage, it would still be in the constitution.

Sorry, but that's political reality.

[yellowcanine]

25. You are ignoring the number of people in favor of civil rights

for everyone, not just themselves. Sure, if it was only a question of gays and their families it is a small percentage. But I am a heterosexual and I am in favor of gay rights, including marriage. I know lots of other heterosexuals who feel the same way. We may not be in the majority, but there are also many people out there who do not favor gay marriage but still don't want a constitutional amendment - even conservative Republicans. This won't pass. When it comes to basic rights, the history in this country has been for expanding rights. In the early 60s most whites were opposed to interracial marriages but by the early 80s a movie like "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" seemed hopelessly quaint. Social attitudes can change very quickly when people become convinced that basic rights are at stake. This amendment is based on fear. The pictures of two octogenerian lesbians in San Francisco getting married after being together for 50 years are not going to frighten anyone - and I predict those pictures will be circulated widely by the proponents of gay marriage if Bush keeps pushing this. He will look mean-spirited and backward. You are afraid of this, Mr. Bush? Two 80 yr old lesbians?

[Xanth]

27. This amendment is based on fear

Yellowcanine I agree with you. This move by Bush is based on fear. Fear that judges will continue to break the law to push their agenda on everyone else. I am heterosexual and married. I don't believe the gays that marry will personally effect me.

Now if there was an election in a state where a majority of the people voted to have this marriage law passed, it should stand. That's what America is all about, the power of the people, not the few. And the states should be able to decide whether to recognize a gay married couple in their state. I don't think Bush's amendment will pass, but he has to stand up for what the majority of the people stand for.

Breaking the law is the problem. Judge Roy Moore broke the law and was punished. The Mayor Gavin Newsom also broke the law. I don't understand for the outcry in Alabama for Moore breaking the law and none for Newsom breaking the law. This doesn't make any sense to me. We can't have parties that represent people with this kind of hypocrisy. People see right through it.

Here are quotes from Kerry and Edwards on the issue-http://www.sfexaminer.com/article/index.cfm/i/022504n_mayor

Kerry-"I believe the best way to protect gays and lesbians is through civil unions," he added. "I believe the issue of marriage should be left to the states."

Edwards-"I don't personally support gay marriage myself. My position has always been that it's for the states to decide."

States should have the choice no doubt about it, but the rule of law should be followed

[scottxyz]

28. Correction - judges aren't breaking the law

Xanth talks about "fear that judges will continue to break the law to push their agenda on everyone else."

This is a misconception. The role of judges is to INTERPRET the laws, and this often involves STRIKING DOWN laws which are illegal.

True, there are some laws banning gay marriage. But there are other ("higher", older, more fundamental, constitutional) laws guaranteeing equal treatment under the law for ALL people.

It is the job of the judiciary to bring these conflicts into harmony. So when they strike down a lower law in conflict with a higher love, they're not breaking the law - they're doing what they're supposed to do.

"Checks and balances" - remember?

[Xanth]

30. Point taken.

Your right Scott. It's all about interpretation and who benefits from it. Yes checks and balances are essential to fair law. Since we are in an every changing world I expect changes. In order to make a change there has to be a standard to base it on, a foundation. The people need to vote to make these changes.

I researched the Massachusetts Constitution and found something which is probably in every constitution. The petitioning for qualified voters to make changes. This is the foundation set and a process to make changes. This is where states can make their own choice.

The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts-

http://www.socialaw.com/reference/constitution.html

[djg21]

29. This really isn't about civil rights.

This argument is about semantics, and, as the dissent in the Mass Supreme Court decision observed, the "M- word."

If it were about civil rights, one would think that "civil unions" would satisfy equal protection, so long as they afforded precisely the same panoply of rights to same-sex couples as marriage does to hetero couples (incl. immigration, intestate succession and rights of survivorship, joint property, adoption, taxation, etc.,). The terminology simply shouldn't matter!

I agree with Rep. Barney Frank on this one. Given polls indicating that over 60% of the population is OPPOSED to gay "marriages" (many more support "civil unions"), this is a wedge issue that can only drive centrist Dems and "traditional" independents away from our candidate come November!

As a party, we should embrace the position staked out by Edwards and Kerry -- we should be pro "civil unions," and pro "civil rights," and not necessarily for gay "marriage." IMO, it is unfortunate that some in our party are pushing the issue of gay "marriages" at this inopportune time. Pushing for the right to enter gay "marriages" as opposed to "civil unions" at best can result in a pyrrhic victory.

[Silverhair]

13. Also, the MA poll is highly informative.

MA is a VERY liberal state - strong blue. They even voted Democrat in 72, although not in 84. And if a very liberal state is about evenly divided on the issue, what can you extrapolate for the rest of the country?

Further remember, that on ratification, it is one state - one vote. CA and WY carry the same weight.

The federal DOMA passed 342 to 67 in the house and 85 to 14 in the senate. That's why Clinton signed it as his veto would have been certainly overturned.

[Gopens]

31. For what it's worth

If we truly expect our government to function the way it's supposed to, then it doesn't matter if DOMA (whether the federal version or any state's version) passed by 100-0 or 51-49. If said law violates the Constitution (as I believe DOMA does), then it's the judiciary's job to throw it out.

Yeah, busloads of people might not agree with gay marriage and might like to see it outlawed, but they might want to move somewhere where freedom isn't held up to such a lofty ideal.

If 98 percent of the people wanted to repeal the First Amendment, would you go along with that, too?

I keep hearing about "activist judges" ruling contrary to the wishes of "the people." Well, if "the people" want to enact all sorts of unconstitutional laws that betray the principles this country is supposed to stand for, then I guess I'm all for "activist judges."