Is the Gay Marriage Amendment DOA?

[WilliamPitt]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/03/28/gop_divided_on_marriage_amendment/

GOP divided on marriage amendment

Republicans grapple with same-sex issue

By Mary Leonard, Globe Staff, 3/28/2004

WASHINGTON -- Republican leaders have run into unexpected resistance within their own party to the proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and are regrouping to avoid an embarrassing defeat on a measure that is a top priority for social conservatives and an election issue for President Bush.

With two-thirds majorities required to pass an amendment in both the House and the Senate, Republicans concede they may have overestimated the momentum in Congress and are considering altering the language or delaying votes to build more support.

In the Senate, at least one-third of the 51 Republicans have withheld support from the proposed amendment. Some assert that Congress should wait until federal courts or state legislatures grapple with gay marriages. Others believe the measure discriminates against gays and lesbians. Many say amending the Constitution should be a last resort.

"There are a lot of people like me who think we don't need to amend the Constitution," said Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican. "Certainly, there is not unanimity on this issue, to say the least."

Even if the GOP leadership united Senate Republicans behind a marriage amendment, they would still need the votes of 16 Democrats, and so far only Senator Zell Miller of Georgia has endorsed the measure. The Senate's one independent, James M. Jeffords of Vermont, said he opposes the proposed amendment.

...more...

[Narf]

1. I certainly hope it dies.

We don't need the government using the Constitution to prevent individuals from exercising their rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

[jpgray]

2. I think we figured out it doesn't have the numbers to pass the Senate

Red meat to the base, wedge issue to divide Kerry's support, not expected to go anywhere--that was my take on it.

[shekina]

5. same thoughts here

Although I pretty much just thought Bush was throwing a bone to the religious right.

[neebob]

3. Yes, please

Let it die so John Kerry doesn't have to come up with some convoluted explanation that boils down to "Regardless of my personal beliefs, I don't support amending the Constitution," and I don't have to spend much time thinking about why I'm supporting someone who doesn't think gay people should be able to get married.

Edit:

On the other hand, it might be kinda cool if it died a little bit longer and noisier death, making Bush look like that much more of a dork for throwing it out just before his residency went down in flames.

[Badger1]

4. Doesn't matter

The rupug objective is to get the states to put it up for a vote to ammend each state constitution. It is nothing more than an effort to encourage the far right wing to show up at the ballots on election day. What the house and senate do does not matter.

[CHestonsucks]

6. The furor seems to have died down

on this amendment. I gather most states are not in favor of the practice so the need for an amendment may become moot, or states may amend their own constitutions to allow or prohibit same-sex marriage.

Zell Miller is not a Democrat, I don't care what the old cracker says.

He's a shmuck and a religious freak.

He needs to be put out to pasture.

[SarahB]

7. I think it might be

I think the issue was put forth in an effort to marginalize Dean, especially since for a while there, he was looking like he had the potential of being the nominee. Now that he isn't a factor, I could see this issue being put aside. Hopefully, in regards to a Constitutional Amendment, it will be put aside.