Amendment Fight Gets Contentious On Hill

[ruggerson]

http://www.washblade.com/2006/5-25/news/national/fight.cfm


Some predict changes to wording to entice moderates

By JOSHUA LYNSEN
Thursday, May 25, 2006


As a Senate vote nears on a federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, some political observers are speculating that the wording of the amendment might be shortened in a last-ditch effort to draw support from moderate senators.

As approved May 18 by the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, the proposed constitutional amendment bans gay marriage and any equivalent, which presumably includes civil unions and perhaps some domestic partnerships and other forms of legal recognition for gay couples.

“Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman,” the proposed amendment reads. “Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status of the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”

But there’s new talk on Capitol Hill of removing the second sentence before senators vote on the amendment next month.

(more)

[Oversea Visitor]

1. Stupid things

What a waste of good salaries for such stupid action.

[Charlie Brown]

2. How is it "conservative" to waste tax money on more committee time

to screw around with the Bill of Rights?

[librechik]

3. It reminds me of the Dutch Tulip Craze

"Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds"

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1897597320/sr=8-1/qid=1148607975/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-4300055-5000007?%5Fencoding=UTF8

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1897597320.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

[Copperred]

4. AMENDMENT TO CONSTITUTION? ANY CHANCE?

IS THIS GOING TO PASS?


The DEMS HAVE THE ABILILT TO MAKE SURE THIS NEVER SUCCEEDS RIGHT?

[Charlie Brown]

5. Well, McCain has said he's going to oppose it

If anything indicates it's a dead issue, I think that does.

http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20060522-101653-5873r

[MiniMe]

9. Even if it passes congress, it would have to be ratified by 2/3

of the states. And I seriously doubt that would happen.

[rurallib]

6. To get that full fundie repressive regressive appeal

I have always thought it should say: "Marriage shall consisit of one man and one woman both of the same race and Christian sect".
I'd think that would cover all their bases.

[Hosnon]

7. GOOD GOD...will they shut up about amendments? They are IMPOSSIBLE

unless there is a defect in the Constitution, some extreme popular support, or blackmail (Civil War).

When the nation is split roughly 50-50 on an issue there is NO WAY it will pass. They couldn't even get a flag burning amendment passed and there's no pro burning per se agenda.

Politics as usual....

[Ian David]

8. Actually, it should say "A Man and a Woman who both speak English."

Otherwise, gay people will start marrying steroid-using alligators that burn the flag.