I finally spent some time this weekend reading some of this week's articles in response to the Massachusetts ruling saying only full marriage rights for gays and lesbians are constitutional in that state. I have had faith until now the system would work in our favor, but I'm getting a lot more worried here.

Yesterday, several news sources (including the NYT) reported Bush will soon announce his full support for one of the proposed Federal Marriage Amendments. I just came across a chilling report from Andrew Sullivan at andrewsullivan.com ...apparently, Bush will be endorsing the Musgrave Amendment:

Let's be very clear about this: This wording, particularly the part in italics, will strip away many of the rights we already enjoy. Vermont's civil unions will be nullified, and civil unions will become impossible in ALL states. Many of the services a lot of you and your friends have sought to get some of the same legal rights as married couples will also be nullified. This is no accident, as Sullivan points out on his page. It's punitive, which is exactly what the extreme right wing wants. They will simply play it as "protecting the family", of course, and I think even the vast majority of gays (and even more of the general public) have no idea what the ramifications of the Musgrave amendment would be.

The amendment will apparently be brought to the Senate floor soon after Bush announces his support. Not only does this coincide with the beginning of the re-election campaigns for several key Senators, it will also coincide with the first marriages in Massachusetts. You better believe the undecided Senators will be threatened by the right wing to make it a key issue in their re-election campaigns. In campaign TV commercials, video of the scariest-looking gay and lesbian couples kissing on the steps of the courthouse under the American flag will be used, and those pictures will be intermixed with the most extreme pictures you can remember from gay pride parades around the world. An article in yesterday's NYT makes it clear the GOP plans to do these kinds of things to force the fence-sitting Senators over to their side.

There's a reason this is going to the Senate first. If the FMA passes the Senate, I'm afraid the game is over. There is more support in the House, and even more in the state legislatures. The fight is on, and NOW. Sadly, I haven't seen any hint that gay rights groups are organized and ready to fight this so soon and on such a large scale. For the first time, I'm really getting worried about this.

Of course it's getting serious. The Bush administration is beginning to realize that the lying and the prevaricating and the economy are all become non-partisan issues. Now, he comes down hard on gay marriage and all the out-of-work, lied-to Republicans will vote for him. Because, you know, he may have ruined the economy and American's international credibility, but gosh-darnit, he draws the line at the homos.

There are those who would say, "This has no chance of being passed and ratified." (Phillyfan and MIB) I am terribly frightened that it will. If every state with a DOMA on the books ratifies it, the amendment passes. And just the fact that our Compassionate President now supports it makes it more probable. As I've learned in other threads, the period for Ratification can be deacades, giving plenty of time for the states on the fence to be bombarded with adds long enough to pass it.

Bush knows that by supporting this, he will easily secure the southern states without even running a single add.

I have said, If this passes, I'm moving to Canada! I would be ashamed to be an American!

[ February 08, 2004, 07:55 AM: Message edited by: Denver Fan ]

[I have said, If this passes, I'm moving to Canada! I would be ashamed to be an American! [/QB][/QUOTE]

This reminded me of all those celebrities that said they would move out of the US if Bush were elected in 2000. Seems like members of Pearl Jam were among them. I'm still waiting for them to leave.

The difference is I'm not wealthy and famous. This Amendment is a direct attack on me and who I am. Canada offers a better option, they already offer these rights. I wouldn't move to make a pathetic statement, I'd do it because I am not welcome in the US.

The Celebrities were just whining. I'm not, you and I are literally being attacked!

I agree this is getting serious, but I did hear about a poll taken by ABC that showed that 58% of Americans opposed amending the Constitution on this issue. I understand Bush and the right wing will pull out all stops to push this through. It may backfire as moderates and independents may see this as extremist.

Naturally, I oppose any unnecessary tinkering with the Constitution or denial or diminution of our rights, at the local, state or federal level. But there's another perspective on the whole FMA that has yet to be discussed here and I don't at all mind raising it.

Consider that the rulings of the MA Court just may have given the wrong impetus to those G&L activists who are working for equal relationship rights. (I hesitate to use the term "marriage" because in the US, despite its origin, it really is a religious term that meets its legal counterpart only when the marriage license is issued or denied.) Unwilling to wait until American society as a whole - in both its civil and religious components - adapts to and accepts the idea and reality of same-sex couples with equal rights, just as American society needed time to absorb and accept the impact of Brown v. Bd. of Education on racial equality grounds (some continue to argue that Americans have yet to - and may never - accept that ruling and its sequelae despite all the evidence to the contrary), too many are riding the wave of the MA decision as the sole means of landing our quest for equal rights at every American's door.

Moreover, there is an aspect of political opportunism in their doing so; in states like CA where a Democratic legislature sees itself "held hostage" by a Republican governor, or where those with a similar national mindset sees themselves laboring under the rule of a president improperly elected, what better way to embarrass the respective chief executives and their party than by passing "gay marriage" legislation only to have it shot down by a veto or an act of Congress, whether in the form of the FMA or some other equally pandering act, thereby confirming the GOP as the party of GLBT oppression?

If cooler and less partisan heads prevailed in the think tanks of the gay left, assuming they ever allowed for discussion of this option (cf. the open and vigorous debate among conservatives over the wisdom of ad hoc amendments to the Constitution), perhaps all our interests in advancing equal rights would be better served by stepping back, allowing the impact of the ruling to sink in and gain social and religious acceptance - vigorously fighting FMA and similar legislation all the while - but then pressing our case in the proper forum for such action: public opinion and the legislatures of the various states. Our time will certainly come - look how far we've come since Stonewall! - but it may be foolhardy to insist that it must be now.

I tend to agree with you GM, I was content with the Civil Union option. It is far more palatable to conservatives and would likely become more common throughout the country. When Civil Unions has had it's day in the sun and society is getting more used to it, then and only then push for marriage equality. 'Separate but Equal' is a comprimise I can live with until the attitudes and climate changes.

I have also thought the Mass SC jumped the gun and may hurt us in the long run.

[ February 08, 2004, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: Denver Fan ]

This is all good in theory, but the fact is the FMA that is being proposed -- and for which voting will soon begin -- would not allow for civil unions and would result in the revocation of some already existing rights.

When I heard of the Massachusetts ruling this week that clarified only "full marriage" rights would be allowed, I immediately knew there would be a backlash. The task at hand is to make sure the backlash isn't so severe as to propel this FMA to being ratified.

In a sense, the gay community has rolled the dice here in a major way, and just like any big gamble, we will all either win big or lose big. But, the fact is the die has been cast, and after the election year drama dies down, I think we should take a long, hard look at the wisdom of making such a big bet.

How is it possible to "step back" and "vigorously fight" at the same time? This makes no sense. The right wing scum won't be satisfied until we're dead, or at least hidden away again. To hell with "stepping back." Fight them at every opportunity, fight them with the truth, fight them with every weapon we have at our disposal, use their tactics and fight dirty when needed.

And that means fighting like hell to get rid of the lying, hatemongering, warmongering, divisive, budget-nuking administration.

[ February 08, 2004, 02:14 PM: Message edited by: Joe in Philly ]

The Celebrities were just whining. I'm not, you and I are literally being attacked! [/QB][/QUOTE]

I knew those grade school civil defense drills would payoff someday!

People also need to remember that not only Vermont, but now New Jersey, California, and one other state, I believe, may offer civil union-style rights for homosexuals. Vermont is a small state but New Jersey has a large gay population (there are over 8 million people total in the small state) and California, with over 30 million total in population probably has the largest gay population in the country, so thousands of gays and lesbians will have their rights STRIPPED by this bill, in addition to the millions who will then have no opportunity to benefit, at the state level, from such benefits. It's outrageous, hateful and disgusting, and I cannot understand how any homosexual person could defend this, or anyone who supports it, FROM EITHER party.

What really dismays me is that many Democrats who face tough Senate races will be in a serious bind; if they vote for it despite disagreeing with it, they utterly damn gay people, and if they vote against it, the Right Wing will use it to drive them out of office and cement their power.

It could even harm Tom Daschle, who is facing a very tough race; about the only senators facing races this fall who could get away with vetoing it will be the Republicans and Democrats from New England, New York's Chuck Schumer, and possibly Boxer from California and Murray from Washington State. Everyone else will be seriously pressed NOT to stand on the side of gay people. It's just despicable--where is the Christianity these f*cking fanatics supposedly hold dear?

GMG, we have dozens of Republicans in the House & Senate eagerly wanting to put us in our place forever. We have a Republican president who sees in this an opportunity to make this an election about "values" & "culture". So it's all the fault of the gay left?

A year ago you so proud a year ago that Bill Frist spoke at an LCR function. I guess you guys really made an impression on him.

[ February 08, 2004, 08:31 PM: Message edited by: BillyBones ]

I live in Massachusetts and today the pro-amendment people had a rally here. They are pushing hard for an amendment to our state constitution. Keep your fingers crossed that they fail!!!! eek!

As far as the federal one goes, does anyone know the math in the senate on that? Don't they need 2/3 majority to pass it? How can they get that?

Yes, 2/3 of the Senate and 2/3 of the House would have to approve it, where it goes to the states for ratification. 3/4 of the states (38) would have to ratify it for it to become effective. (A president has no role whatsoever in the amendment process.)

If either or both houses of Congress do not pass it out to the states, the states do have another option: A constitutional convention (con-con). If 2/3 of the states call for a constitutional convention to draft and ratify a marriage amendment, then a con-con is called. There the amendment can be discussed and written. Once its wording is finalized, it is then sent out to the states in its official form, where 3/4 of the states need to ratify it for it to become effective.

A con-con is a dangerous path to follow. Never in our history has a con-con been used to amend the constitution. The main reason? Because at a con-con, everything's up for grabs. Other issues besides a marriage amendment can be proposed. Hell, the Constitution itself can be rewritten. Regardless, what comes out of a con-con must be ratified by 3/4 of the states. (FWIW, I seriously doubt a con-con would ever happen. I was just posing the worst case scenario.)

[ February 08, 2004, 11:24 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

Well, there is one piece of good news re: FMA - the American Bar Association has issued a resolution against the Amendment- on states' rights grounds. The ABA is not on record as supporting gay marriage, but simply against the amendment, and members will now have the option of lobbying against it.

MSNBC Coverage

[quote]MIB:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by BeechBark:
[qb]


A con-con is a dangerous path to follow. Never in our history has a con-con been used to amend the constitution. The main reason? Because at a con-con, everything's up for grabs. Other issues besides a marriage amendment can be proposed. Hell, the Constitution itself can be rewritten. Regardless, what comes out of a con-con must be ratified by 3/4 of the states. (FWIW, I seriously doubt a con-con would ever happen. I was just posing the worst case scenario.) [/quote]Thanks for the detailed information; very informative. With only 60% of the public against gay marriage (and dropping); I can't see 3/4 of the states ratifying an amendment, even if it goes that far. Thanks to the Supreme Court's CORRECT interpretation of the Constitution all of the anti-gay laws will be struck down one at a time. The only question is how long will it take. Gays will soon be able to marry in any state and have their marriage recognized in any state as well.

Timber, the only thing that worries me is that 38 states already have a DOMA on the books, if just those 38 take the next step, this thing will get ratified. It could be very close!

Not if W is re-elected. If he appoints two supreme court justices, the recent sodomy law decision can be easily reversed.

Gay marriages will start taking place in a couple months. If a Constitutional Amendment passes AFTER gays are already married, it will start a social Civil War in this country. What are they going to do, suddenly tell all these people they are no longer married? Once people are liberated you cannot chain them back up without a fight. Last I looked we were still in the United States, not the old Soviet Union!

What happened when polygamy was banned in the western states?

Bush Plans To Back Marriage Amendment

Everything else he's done has turned into a colossal failure, so he has to find a surefire winner to back. Mission accomplished.

I for one am glad that Bush will be finally on the record about this. I am sick of the man's attempt to pander to those who both oppose and support gay marriage with his nonsensical statements.

But let's be clear on this - although the President has no role in a Constitutional Amendment process, his support is clearly politically important. And despite all his protestations to the opposite, this amendment is about nothing more than hostility to gay and lesbian Americans. Even Bush states we must defend the "sanctity" and "sacrament" of marriage - he has framed this in religious terms.

After all, there are no other grounds on which to base the argument against gay marriage. For all of their attempts to slander us, no one but the religious right actually believes any harm will come to marriage if gays and lesbians join the institution - the best most opponents can come up with is "marriage is between a man and a woman." Bush himself intends to couch this in terms of defending "traditional" marriage.

But between 30 - 40% of the people in this country support gay marriage, and there are several churches that santify and bless these unions. By backing this amendment, Bush et. al. are specifically picking sides on a religious issue - "these beliefs are good - those beliefs are bad." It is a blatant violation of the principal of religious tolerance in this country, and it should be branded as such. Unfortunately, the likely Democratic candidate is unlikely to stand up for our right to our own religious and moral beliefs - he is too busy pandering himself (in fact, Kerry's opposition to the Mass ruling is the one reason I cannot support him - only under duress when there are no other options will he get my vote).

It is time to take the moral high road, folks - to demand an accounting from the anti-gay hypocrits out there why we should be legally and permanently barred from living our lives according to our completely non-dangerous religious beliefs. The President of the United States is going to support an attempt to codify certain unpopular religious beliefs as dangerous to the country - if I were a Jew or a Muslim, I would be worried right now.

Well put CP-Doom. I agree whole heartedly with your atatements. WE need others like you here in Georgia that will stand by my side and the side of others who won't back down. Yesterday was a good day at the Capitol building and we were definately noticed. The vote goes on today, right now actually. I should know something by noon.

The worst part about FMA is that it has no hope of being ratified by the Senate. Bush will spend his political capital, hoping it will deflect from his record and win votes for November.

FMA supporters will need 16 Democrats to jump on board and not lose any Republicans. That is just not going to happen with the Senate as divided as it is. There are, sadly, about 14 Democrats probable for a Yea vote on FMA, and possibly 4-5 GOP-ers who could vote Nay. Either way, it's not getting ratified.

At least if they bring it up this year, we will get to see who is with us, and who is against us, on this issue.

Okay, if you are so concerned about this passing, what are you going to do about it? Seriously, are we just going to sit here and post and complain about it or are we going to take some kind of action?

I don't want to be considered a second class citizen anymore. I am tired that I cannot marry someone I love and, by the way, it's a guy! It's pathetic.

I'm tired of the apathy in our community. If we don't do something as a community, we may just go back to being thrown back into our figurative closets.

(Okay ... I'm off my soapbox ... )

Well, Allen I know one thing I will be doing is attending an anti-amendment rally at the local MCC church this Friday night. The rally is sponsored by Don'tAmend.com - Don'tAmend web site and they have a listing of all the rallies occurring during Freedom to Marry Week. You can also sign a petition against the amendment and find out other opportunities to do something on that site.

I really think Allen is correct, however - we need to do much more, and I think direct action is necessary. What we need is a version of ACT-UP (instead of "die-ins" we can have "wed-ins") for this issue.

I repeat, twin: A president has NO role whatsoever in the amendment process. None. That is a fact, your link notwithstanding.

origionally posted by BPT336:
FMA supporters will need 16 Democrats to jump on board and not lose any Republicans. That is just not going to happen with the Senate as divided as it is. There are, sadly, about 14 Democrats probable for a Yea vote on FMA, and possibly 4-5 GOP-ers who could vote Nay. Either way, it's not getting ratified.

We cannot think that this will not pass. we have to think that if we do nothing this kind of legislation will pass. Do you recall during the fight for civil rights during the 50's and 60's, Dixiecrats came out of the conservative rural Democrats that did not want things to change. You cannot assume that because someone is a Democrat they will vote they way we would like. We have to let all legislators that this issue is important, and bills allowing discrimination are morally and civilly corrupt. Write, call, e-mail, visit, your representatives. Talk to your friends, family, co-workers, religious family, and people on the street and let them know that this is wrong. Go to rallies and support the groups that are making a stand and show lawmakers we are going to stand together. There is strength in numbers.
I am proud of the group that gather yesterday at the GA state capitol, and the group in MA today. Let's all keep up the good fight!

Every Southern and Western Democratic Senator, as well as those in tight races (like Daschle) will be under extreme pressure to vote for this, so don't be surprised if they do. The only ones up for re-election who'll be able to vote against it are the Democrats from New England, the mid-Atlantic states, and the West Coast. So we should keep this in mind BEFORE the actual votes begin. Also, among the Republicans, a few mavericks may vote against it, but I can foresee only the ones from New England (Chafee, Collins, Snowe, etc.) voting against it, as well as possibly someone like John McCain. So we should also remember which Republicans have the courage to oppose this, since that party is driving this vote, and now that W supports it, the pressure will be intense to go along rather than stand up for the individual rights that this country was founded on.

Just because he doesn't get to sign it into law, as with other bills passed by Congress, doesn't mean he won't play a role. If you don't think that he or his lackeys will be lobbying for it to be passed, then you are completely out of your mind.

[ February 11, 2004, 08:33 PM: Message edited by: Joe in Philly ]

I never said that, Joe. Obviously a president can voice his support/opposition to an amendment, but he has no leverage in trying to get a Member of Congress to vote this way or that, for no matter what a president says or does, he cannot do anything if the House and Senate pass an amendment or defeat one.

[ February 11, 2004, 08:46 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

I'm right. You ARE out of your mind.

Well, I'm not the one foaming at the mouth in here, screaming his head off over some state's right issue. wink

I simply stated a fact, one that is irrefutable. I can't help it if you believe otherwise.

How can you so easily dismiss the fact that Bush or his lackeys will be on the phone lobbying individual representatives to vote in favor of bigotry? Oh wait, I forgot. It's not bigotry. It's just a bunch of faggots being SELFISH!

No, just people getting involved in what is nothing more than a state's rights issue, which is one of the reasons why a federal constitutional amendment is ricidulous. The hypocrisy of those who preach states' rights but then want a constitutional amendment to usurp something that is under the purview of state authority is amazing.

I see you're yelling again. Now who's "out of his mind"?

[ February 11, 2004, 09:11 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

You're right, this is an irrifutable fact. And if Presidents only did that which they are Constitutionally mandated to do, we'd probably have a better run country. But Presidents and Senators and Judges and mid-level government bureaucrats have a tendency to stick their noses in where they do not belong. If Bush were to oppose the amendment, there would be less support for it. If Bush were to ignore the amendment there would be less support for it. If Bush backs the amendment, he's announcing to Senators and Congressmen and state ratifying conventions that there are favors to be had by backing the amendment with him. And that is the real power of the presidency and any other major office in this land. The power to do and collect favors. That's leverage. So, yes, Bush's backing of any amendment is Constitutionally null, but it has great effect in the political reality of Washington. And I have to assume from your posts that you're aware of that and are merely baiting the rabid left wing, rather than being an apologist for the rabid right wing.

you don't anything about government, at all, do you? you mean the president got his tax cuts passed and medicare reform bill passed with no arm twisting, no private tetes a tetes with key members of congress, no strategy sessions with the senate leadership? he just sits back and waits for bills to cross his desk to sign or veto? if only!

That's as succinct and accurate a description of the President's role in this process as I've read to date, jqueer....despite MIB's insistence that Bush has "no role whatsoever in the amendment process" anyone who truly believes that the FORCEFUL public statements made by W within the past three weeks (both directly and through White House spokesman Scott McClellan) will have "NO BEARING WHATSOEVER" on the ultimate votes cast by our elected officials must be either extraordinarily naive or utterly lacking in knowledge of how American politics has been operating for generations.

Don't forget the impact of his message on public perception of gays. For many, Bush's stance on this boils down to: gay marriage unnatural, the people should rise up against it, judges are crazy for giving gays this thing that was never meant for them and will pervert its sanctity. All part of the message that gay=bad. Brought to you now from the White House.

Like I've said before, are you going to continue to bitch about it and do nothing or are you going to do something about it?

Some are us have been continually doing BOTH, Allen....in addition to voicing my opinion in a number of public forums and discussion boards (including those of the "Christian right") I have been continually contacting members of Congress and the White House (thru the HRC site which I urge everyone to utilize at http://www.hrcationcenter.org/campaign/bush_fma ) via both e-mail and phone calls to let them know where I, as a valued constituent AND voter, stand on this crucial issue.

I'm certainly not trying to attack you, Allen, because I realize we are on the "same team" here but after reading a few of your posts over the past couple of days complaining about the "bitching" and "lack of action" that you apparently perceive from some of your fellow Outsporters, my retort is what action have/are YOU taking in an effort to obtain or, in some cases, RETAIN equality for our community?....if nothing else, the quick and simple steps facilitated through the HRC that I linked above is a great place to begin.

gamecock ... Hi! I am a member of HRC and I have emailed my constituents on many occassions. I have written letters to the editors of Lavender magazine and at the Star Tribune, so yeah, I have done my part.

What about you guys? Have you done your part??

I'm still waiting for the uniform. But, until then, I've been working out a lot.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

And yet you support them anyway.

Other than Bob Barr and Alan Simpson, (who can't vote on the FMA), how many Republicans in Congress will agree with this view and vote NO?