Opponents Of Gay Marriage Divided | Washington Post

[Ediacara]

Opponents Of Gay Marriage Divided
At Issue Is Scope Of an Amendment

By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 29, 2003; Page A01

A broad array of religious groups and conservative political activists has united behind the idea of a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. But the fledgling coalition is deeply divided about what, exactly, the amendment should say.

At issue are not merely the fine details of legislative wording but the amendment's very purpose: Should it ban only same-sex marriage, or also take aim at Vermont-style civil unions and California-style partnerships that some opponents say amount to marriage in all but name?

Underneath that dispute, moreover, are differing calculations about what language would appeal to the general public, and what would excite grass-roots conservatives. "It's purity versus pragmatism," said Glenn T. Stanton, a senior analyst at Focus on the Family, one of the groups leading the charge against gay marriage. "Do we go for everything that we want, or take the best we think we can get?"

More at the Washington Post

[Occulus]

1. If this passes,

look for a Federal Homosexuality Act within the next four years. These people want to jail people like me. That's their ultimate prize- removal of the faggots from our God-fearing country.

I think I'm gonna :puke:

[whirlygigspin]

2. Do we burn them at the stake or just crucify em?

choices choices choices,

[pistoff democrat]

10. Honey:

it's similar to the ERA; 2/3 of the states will never go for it...now, stop puking; it will be okay.

[joeybee12]

3. I really don't think they'll get an amendment passed in the Senate

It takes two thirds, and other than Nelson and Miller, what Dems would vote for it? And I think the NE Repukes as well as McCain would vote against it, might even get a couple more real conservative twits on the basis that you don't f**k with the constitution.

I'm starting to think their fervor at this is actually a good thing; they are going to pull some Repukes and the Repuke party in general so far to the right (I know, I know, how much farther can it go?) that people will be so turned off, without actually getting the amendment passed.

[Ediacara]

4. it would be a bloodbath in the senate

Nelson of Nebraska, and some southern Dems MIGHT vote for it, but they most likely would defer to state law. McCain and moderates like Chaffee, Snow, and Collins would vote no also, for the same reasons. And then there's Lindsey Graham, who would be outed by Larry Flint in a New York second, and we all know it goes downhill from there....

[The Zanti Regent]

11. THe sad truth is it can't be stopped

You think Breaux, Hollings, Miller, Nelson (FLA and NE), Bayh, and other conservative Dems WON'T vote for this. The sad truth is the Amendment will pass in a landslide in both houses.

Which states outside of California and New York would reject it? Can you actually name ONE MORE STATE that would reject a Defense of Marriage amendment?

and YES, the NEXT item on the Nazi RepubliKKKan agenda is the full Criminalization of homosexuality.

Sadly, I think the only way out for Gays and Lesbians is to run for the Canadian Border before they're beaten to death by biblethumpers

[roughsatori]

6. Wellstone voted in favor of the Defense of Marriage act and Clinton

signed it. So I don't trust that the Dems will stop it without advocacy from within the voter and activist ranks.

We have quite a few members here who like to tell gays that our civil rights are just getting in the way and to shut up for the party's sake. That would probably be their mantra as that "Act" is passed.

I refuse to acquiesce to Republican bigots just because some Democratic cowards recommend that I do.

[Stuckinthebush]

5. This type of amendment is dead in the water before it starts out

It takes 2/3 of the Senate, 2/3 of the House, and then must be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures.

This ain't gonna happen, folks. First, it may get 2/3 support in the House, but that is an iffy proposition. Say it does - then the Senate must approve it by 2/3 of the Senate. It'll never happen here. 66 members must approve of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. There are at least 35 members who would vote No on this thing.

OK, say it gets past the Senate, all it takes is 13 States to say No. I'm sure that by the time it got to this level, at least 13 legislatures would be swayed to vote NO.

Now, another possibility is that the amendment would be worded to require state conventions to ratify. This would mean that non-politicians would be chosen to ratify the amendment taking out political pressures from the process. Either way, a 3/4 majority of states is needed.

I do not know if the state legislatures must ratify by a 2/3 majority. If so, then that makes the amendment process even more difficult.

By the time all of this happens, it will be the year 2010, and public opinion will have changed drastically.

This is all election year bluster by the fringe right.

[joeybee12]

9. You're right, and I think the Repuke leadership is trying to find a way

not to vote on it at all--they don't want some of the people going on record either way.

Also, this is really a win for the Dems--the mantra simply is that you don't f**k with the constitution--you don't even have to mention gay marriage.

[Nobody]

7. The gay couple neighbors of yours are threatening your marriage....HOW?

If they just live together or if they're married, what's the difference to you?

They're still your neighbors. They're still gay. They're still committed to each other. They still love each other.

The difference is now greedy relatives can't sue in probate court for the stuff you willed your partner once you're dead. Now you can visit your hospitalized partner in the emergency care unit. Now your employer can carry your partner on your insurance plan.

My thought is that if you have a strong marriage, you don't need anyone protecting it.

[w4rma]

8. Most folks don't want the religious right tinkering with the Constitution.

IMHO

[IndianaGreen]

12. Fuck you Big Dog for signing DOMA

Easy for Big Dog to sacrifice the equal rights of GLBT while he was getting blow jobs from Monica.

Civil liberties are not for sale or compromise.

:grr: