Good argument

[libertango]

Slactivist hits at least one nail on the head regarding the push for a Constitutional amendment to privilege certain religious beliefs:

"(San Francisco Mayor) Newsom highlights the contradiction embraced by those who want to argue both that same-sex marriages are not constitutional and that the Constitution must be amended in order to make such marriages illegal.

If these marriages are not constitutional, then there is no need for the FMA (Federal Marriage Amendment).

If these marriages are constitutional, then one cannot argue that they are illegal or illegitimate.

The very effort to introduce and eventually ratify something like the Federal Marriage Amendment concedes the essence of Newsom's argument. Supporters of the amendment, therefore, are at least tacitly conceding that theirs is an effort designed to alter the Constitution in order to make it less inclusive than it is today."

Comments

[atlaz.livejournal.com]

I was saying something similar the other day. Constitution (something we don't have here and I often forget) aside, if a marriage is not recognised by law, there are no associated benefits and therefore the person is still, legally unmarried. Hence, no need to make it a crime because the ceremony is just a personal thing akin to a blessing and has no effect on the legal framework of a relationship between a same sex couple.

[bibliofile.livejournal.com]

You know, that's an excellent point they have, there.

Supporters of the amendment, therefore, are at least tacitly conceding that theirs is an effort designed to alter the Constitution in order to make it less inclusive than it is today."

I wonder if that's one reason it'll take time to get the proposed amendment out there. Was it brought up the last time when an amendment was proposed? (I can't recall.)

[hal-obrien.livejournal.com]

The last really big push for an amendment was the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment for lurkers who may be too young to remember).

Even though there was 90+% support for it at the time, to pass an amendment one needs to pass two-thirds of both chambers of Congress, and the legislatures of two-thirds of the states. That means 34 states, and as I recall, the ERA stalled out at 31 or 32. (obFannish: Harlan's vigil in the tent at Iguanacon was because Arizona hadn't passed the ERA yet.)

So I suspect it's taking time to introduce the final version of what the Saulist "Christians" want to run with both

a) to nail down the language they think has the best chance of passing,
b) to disregard practicality and come up with the most restrictive wording possible (a contradiction, yes, but they're a factious bunch), and
c) because not even they realio-trulio expect the damn thing to pass. At that point, better it should fail after the election.