Bush calls for ban on gay marriage

[REDWAVE]

Of course, I'm against him on this (as on almost everything, although I suppose I'm against athletes taking steroids). But what I find interesting here is the politics of this. Bush doesn't do anything without "re-"election in mind, and this is surely no exception. Obviously, he's playing to his base, the "religious right" (which is neither). The fact that he feels compelled to throw them red meat so early on is a measure of his desperation. Politically, it would have been smarter to hold off on this at least until closer to election time. Evidently, Karl Rove told him he needed to shore up his base.

Also, this is almost enitrely pure tokenism on Bush's part, political symbolism, because it's highly unlikely such an amendment will ever pass, even in the current right-wing official political climate. Not only is public opinion swinging to the left, but do the math. It's very hard to get a constitutional amendment passed. The method which has always been followed so far is: (1) it has to be passed by a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress; and (2) it has to be ratified (by majority vote) by the legislature (again, both houses, except for the one unicameral state) of three quarters of the states. The Republicans currently have a majority in both houses of Congress, but they have nowhere near a two-thirds majority. If the Democrats can maintain even minimal party unity against it, they can defeat it. Even if it makes it through Congress, there are a lot of states whose legislatures won't ratify it.

The danger is if a lot of spineless congressional Democrats cave to the Republicans on this (as they've done on many other issues), and vote for it.

 

[Guest]

Of course, I'm against him on this (as on almost everything, although I suppose I'm against athletes taking steroids). But what I find interesting here is the politics of this. Bush doesn't do anything without "re-"election in mind, and this is surely no exception. Obviously, he's playing to his base, the "religious right" (which is neither). The fact that he feels compelled to throw them red meat so early on is a measure of his desperation. Politically, it would have been smarter to hold off on this at least until closer to election time. Evidently, Karl Rove told him he needed to shore up his base.

Also, this is almost enitrely pure tokenism on Bush's part, political symbolism, because it's highly unlikely such an amendment will ever pass, even in the current right-wing official political climate. Not only is public opinion swinging to the left, but do the math. It's very hard to get a constitutional amendment passed. The method which has always been followed so far is: (1) it has to be passed by a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress; and (2) it has to be ratified (by majority vote) by the legislature (again, both houses, except for the one unicameral state) of three quarters of the states. The Republicans currently have a majority in both houses of Congress, but they have nowhere near a two-thirds majority. If the Democrats can maintain even minimal party unity against it, they can defeat it. Even if it makes it through Congress, there are a lot of states whose legislatures won't ratify it.

The danger is if a lot of spineless congressional Democrats cave to the Republicans on this (as they've done on many other issues), and vote for it.

I don't know... personally, I'm still worried that it has a good chance of passing (basically because of the Democrats caving).

Xtaabay

 

[Pookie]

... The danger is if a lot of spineless congressional Democrats cave to the Republicans on this (as they've done on many other issues), and vote for it.

I think the Democrats can turn this into a "protecting the Constitution" issue, instead of a "marriage" issue. They can fight this using the argument that this is a horrible precedent to make as far as protecting individual rights and liberties. The Constitution was written to protect us from the Government violating basic rights and liberties. To offer an amendment that specifically takes away rights is an insult to the authors of this document, and those who have defended it for generations.

 

[Mary Hall]

Bush calls for ban on gay marriage

How about a ban on dumbass presidents?

 

[College_geek]

How about a ban on dumbass presidents?

Hahaha, I wish. I saw it on the news just as Zerg was about to call me, and I ended up yelling at him when I picked it up. He told me not to worry, because he'd be out of the presidency next year, but right now, I have no idea which way it will go. I'd like to think that this will piss off a lot of people and he won't win. The only little ray of hope I have if it is passed is that a future president can make a new amendment that cancels it out, a la the prohibition. I can hope.

 

[Bitchslapper]

I think Pookie raises an excellent point here. I think the "constitionality" of such an amendment is well worth consideration.

As far as an additional amendment that would cancel it out (if things went that way), I certainly hope it would come much sooner after the original amendment than the cancellation of Prohibition did. That was, what, almost twenty years later? Damn, where did I put that copy of the Constitution...

 

[Pookie]

I think Pookie raises an excellent point here. I think the "constitionality" of such an amendment is well worht consideration.

As far as an additional amendment that would cancel it out (if things went that way), I certainly hope it would come much sooner after the original amendment than the cancellation of Prohibition did. That was, what, almost twenty years later? Damn, where did I put that copy of the Constitution...

The chances of the amendment passing are pretty small. It would take 2/3 of both the US Senate & US House to even send it to the States for ratification. There are already Republicans saying they do not support an amendment to the Constitution like this.

Bush's whole goal is to shore up the "social conservative" voters for the upcoming election. I think he's preaching to the choir though. Those voters weren't going to vote for a Democratic candidate anyways. His only hope is to increase voter turnout among that group.

 

[Bitchslapper]

I agree completely. And now that you mention it, it would be nice if candidates focused more on increasing voter turnout in general. I think that is just too low most of the time. Maybe a lot of people don't think thier vote really makes much of a difference?

 

[Queersetti]

I think Pookie raises an excellent point here. I think the "constitionality" of such an amendment is well worth consideration.

As far as an additional amendment that would cancel it out (if things went that way), I certainly hope it would come much sooner after the original amendment than the cancellation of Prohibition did. That was, what, almost twenty years later? Damn, where did I put that copy of the Constitution...

A Constitutional amendment is by definition, constitutional. Your example of the 21st Amendment, which repealed the 18th (Prohibition) is to the point. If any previous provision is changed by an amendment, the first provision is null and void. Only another amendment could change it. (Actually there is one exception to this rule, but it is arcane and not relevant to this topic.)

 

[SnoopDog]

A Constitutional amendment is by definition, constitutional. Your example of the 21st Amendment, which repealed the 18th (Prohibition) is to the point. If any previous provision is changed by an amendment, the first provision is null and void. Only another amendment could change it. (Actually there is one exception to this rule, but it is arcane and not relevant to this topic.)

That would be another really bad decision in a long history of bad decisions made by Bush
Snoopy

 

[sigh]

Bush's whole goal is to shore up the "social conservative" voters for the upcoming election. I think he's preaching to the choir though. Those voters weren't going to vote for a Democratic candidate anyways. His only hope is to increase voter turnout among that group.

I think you're right, but I don't think his fear is that they'll vote for a Dem, but that they won't vote at all. Hard core conservatives have been getting upset with a lot of Bush's policies. His big spending alone has their shorts twisted in a knot. But if it's true that Bush is doing this to woo far right conservatives, I think it's ironic as hell. Conservatives have been complaining for years about federal interference in private lives, saying that such issues should be left to the states and local communities, but here we have Bush trying to coddle up to his most extreme supporters by doing exactly that.

 

[sigh]

(Actually there is one exception to this rule, but it is arcane and not relevant to this topic.)

You're such a tease.

 

[College_geek]

The chances of the amendment passing are pretty small. It would take 2/3 of both the US Senate & US House to even send it to the States for ratification.

Well, I read in an article on MSN this afternoon that apparently 2/3 of the country disagrees with the idea of legalizing gay marriage, so if the ratio works for the US Senate and the House, then it would pass. I just get sadder and sadder each day.

 

[Zergplex]

Zergplex Says

You're such a tease.

I agree, you can't say something like that and just leave us hanging Q.

-Zergplex

 

[Queersetti]

Re: Zergplex Says

I agree, you can't say something like that and just leave us hanging Q.

-Zergplex

Article V of the Constitution, which explains how the amendment process works, concludes with the phrase "...no State , without its Consent,shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."


That is the only prohibition against amending provisions of the Constitution. You could amend it to eliminate the House of Representatives, appoint the President a Dictator for life, or make it mandatory that everyone wear their underwear on the outside, but you can't change the rule that says each state shall have the same number of Senators under the normal rules for amendment.

Presumably , you could get all the states to agree to a different dispensation of Senate seats, and many people argue that the current system is inherently undemocratic (There is 1 Senator for every 17 million Californians, while there is 1 for every 250,000 residents of Wyoming) but obviously, the small population states would never agree to such a change, and any one of them could veto it.

 

[DustyWolfe]

How about a ban on dumbass presidents?

I'll vote

 

[College_geek]

Hey, Q, just wanted to say that I love your new title and AV. It's delightfully sarcastic.

One thing I've been thinking about over the last few days on this subject is that apparently Bush doesn't give a crap about all the gay and lesbian civilians who voted for him in the last election. I read somewhere that they believe that it was about 1 million people. That seems like quite a high number, maybe not compared to the total population of the states, but had those people not voted for him, he wouldn't be here right now. The Log Cabin Republican group has been mentioned in almost every article I've read on the matter and it's issues like this that kind of confuse me on why someone would support a group that doesn't support them.

 

[Zergplex]

Zergplex Says

Hey, Q, just wanted to say that I love your new title and AV. It's delightfully sarcastic.

One thing I've been thinking about over the last few days on this subject is that apparently Bush doesn't give a crap about all the gay and lesbian civilians who voted for him in the last election. I read somewhere that they believe that it was about 1 million people. That seems like quite a high number, maybe not compared to the total population of the states, but had those people not voted for him, he wouldn't be here right now. The Log Cabin Republican group has been mentioned in almost every article I've read on the matter and it's issues like this that kind of confuse me on why someone would support a group that doesn't support them.

The way he sees it is that he may lose 1 million gay votes, but he'll gain that and many times over it in homophobe/religious votes. That train of thought doesn't neccisarily work, but he doesn't seem to realize that

 

[Zergplex]

Zergplex Says

Well, I read in an article on MSN this afternoon that apparently 2/3 of the country disagrees with the idea of legalizing gay marriage, so if the ratio works for the US Senate and the House, then it would pass. I just get sadder and sadder each day.

Yes but a good deal of people MORE then that agree with domestic partnership, which it would also outlaw in the amendment. Also even people who are against gay marriage may not agree with the amendment because of (as other people mentioned) the precident it makes in the constitution, that basic rights can be taken from people by the federal goverment, no matter what your state says, Those 2 things should easily sway it back from the 2/3rds majority.

I actually thought the ratio of people who were against gay marriage was higher then that. People will never learn...

-Zergplex

 

[Pookie]

Well, I read in an article on MSN this afternoon that apparently 2/3 of the country disagrees with the idea of legalizing gay marriage, so if the ratio works for the US Senate and the House, then it would pass. I just get sadder and sadder each day.

Currently, 61% of Americans disagree with same-sex marriage. But ....

... As Bush recognized in his announcement, "An amendment to the Constitution is never to be undertaken lightly," and indeed the Founding Fathers of the United States required that any amendment must be approved by a two-thirds majority in each the House of Representatives and the Senate, and then approved by three-fourths of the states. Although there were no polls in the late 1700s, it is reasonable to assume that the Founders envisioned amendments to the Constitution taking place in situations in which these same types of large majorities of the public were in support, and that such high levels of support would be reflected in the votes of their representatives.

That clearly is not the situation in this case. A special Gallup analysis of more than 2,500 Americans' responses over the last eight months to a question asking about a constitutional amendment that defines marriage shows that such an amendment is supported by a very slim majority of Americans, 51%, with 45% opposed. ...

Source: http://www.gallup.com/content/default.asp?ci=10792

Most Americans tend to be quite cautious about amending the US Constitution. That's why it's only happened 17 times in two centuries.

 

[Pookie]

Bush's announcement Tuesday, which the White House said followed a good deal of serious reflection, contradicts Bush's own statement four years ago that states should be left to "do what they want to do" regarding same-sex marriage.

Asked repeatedly what had changed Bush's mind, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said only, "His views have always been well known on this very issue."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/25/elec04.prez.bush.marriage/index.html

Bush always seems to be running from his past, instead of actually running for President.

 

[Queersetti]

Thanks, CG

When accessing the way people feel about emotional issues like gay marriage, polls do a very poor job.

The pertinent question is not whether or not a majority of Americans still oppose gay marriage, I think we can all agree that they do. The question polls don't ask is How much do they care?

The reason why we see this large gap between the number of people who oppose same sex marriage and those who support an amendment, is that many people are personally against it but don't think it's an important enough issue to change the Constitution.

 

[College_geek]

I wonder how many people just don't care on the issue and have a "let them do whatever they want" attitude. They never have a category for that in the polls on this issue, but they almost always have an "I don't know" choice in all of the other polls.

 

[MzChrista]

I got to tell you there is some inside info that this might not be the big campaign issue people think it will be.
Right now, there is a very prominent GOP politician with very close ties to Bush who is trying to keep his wife from outting him in their divorce proceedings. If it hits the news, the GOP isnt going to be wanting to talk about gays as much as they do now.

 

[DustyWolfe]

I got to tell you there is some inside info that this might not be the big campaign issue people think it will be.
Right now, there is a very prominent GOP politician with very close ties to Bush who is trying to keep his wife from outting him in their divorce proceedings. If it hits the news, the GOP isnt going to be wanting to talk about gays as much as they do now.

say what? Really now? How interesting... Well the rumor down here in little old Austin Texas is that Bush's daughter going to school at UT is a dyke.... who knows if that is true or not