Fundies want a Constitutional Convention to ban same-sex marriage
Paul just mentioned in the post below that homos are on the back burner as targets for the fundies. I guess we were both wrong.
The bible beaters feel the Hill will never come around to doing it for them, they are losing the culture war, and are probably fearful that they will lose control of the House or Senate and it will all slip from their fingers. Witness this insanity from the AmTaliban (via Think Progress).
Earlier this month, efforts to ban gay marriage by amending the Constitution failed badly in Senate. Now the religious right is considering appealing to state legislatures to call a Constitutional Convention under an obscure provision of Article 5 that would allow amendments to the Constitution without congressional approval. The Evans-Novak report has the details:
Meeting after the big failure at the offices of the social-conservative Family Research Council, the top leaders of the marriage movement — Catholic, Protestant and Mormon leaders among others — discussed the possibility of an unprecedented Constitutional Convention. Two-thirds (34) of the state legislatures would have to call for such a convention — which could be done only with great difficulty. Even then, no one knows what such a convention would look like or what sort of amendments could result from it.
I don’t have to tell you how frightening this is, not because of the viability of the idea, but because it exposes the complete level of naked hatred for gays and lesbians by these people.
For all the black homobigots who are wringing their hands about the zero sum game of civil rights, wake up now — you have a sizeable number of citizens willing to open up our entire Constitution for debate just to deprive a group of citizens of civil rights you take for granted. You’re on board with that?
These fundies might not like what they are asking for. Someone could float a constitutional amendment to prevent the tax-exemption of religious organizations.
Novakula actually works out the math – he’s almost salivating at the possibilities…
[I]f such a convention were to pass a marriage amendment, we estimate that 28 states would easily ratify it. Another eight states may do so only after a protracted and bloody political fight (which could span an election cycle). That leaves supporters with two more states to go to reach the threshold of 38 (three-fourths), and only the most difficult ground to fight on — states such as Maine, Rhode Island, Oregon and Nevada are probably not ideal places to win such a fight, although not all would be unwinnable.
Big smooches to Shakes Sis, who hits the nail on the head, as always, with Homobigots won’t throw in the towel:
1. The people who support this shit are totally batshit bonkers and will stop at nothing to permanently relegate the LGBT community to second-class citizenship. After all their wailing about activist judges, here they are trying to find a way to circumvent the legislature after it didn’t deliver unto them the Constitutional amendment they so fervently desire, even after routinely asserting that the legislature was the only acceptable method for resolving the issue. They are vile, hatemongering hypocrites, and I don’t give a piddly shit how firmly they wrap themselves in the flag or how often they claim they’ve got God on their side. There’s not anything remotely moral about it, and I refuse to address it as though there is. This is nothing but an attempt to codify bigotry in law—a nasty, despicable, disingenuous maneuver no matter through which channel it’s pursued nor what motivation, earthly or heavenly, is claimed.
2. LGBT issues matter. Every time I read some allegedly progressive blogger suggesting that this is a secondary issue, I want to put my goddamn fist through the wall. It doesn’t do the LGBT community a fat lot of good if Dems who don’t give a flying fuck about them win—and unless we endeavor passionately and persistently to change minds about these issues, only Dems who don’t can win. Bil Browning has got a post on Evan Bayh’s parsing of the gay marriage issue that’s informative of the game-playing on this issue, illustrating the difference between what Dems say to gay and gay-friendly constituents and the statements they issue via their spokespeople, and how ridiculously hollow the punting—”state’s rights issue”—is as Dems are faced with their own states pushing a gay marriage ban.
Absolutely. As I mentioned a few days ago in my post, More squirming from Dems on equality, Dems hide behind the safety and comfort of publicly opposing a federal amendment to ban same-sex marriage while seemingly unable to articulate, with equal public vigor, a definitive position on what rights they believe LGBT taxpaying citizens should have, be it marriage equality, adoption rights, protection from employment discrimination, and a host of other matters that affect our daily lives.
I echo Shakes’ call to visit Bil Browning’s blog to see the excruciating time he had trying to get an answer from Evan Bayh’s camp on his position on same-sex marriage regarding his own state of Indiana’s pending marriage amendment. He’s more than happy to states that:
* He’s against a federal amendment
* “Marriage is between a man and a woman”
* “Leave it to the states”
But he apparently has no public opinion SJR-7, Indiana’s proposed constitutional amendment. Crickets chirping.
It is the perfect example of the bobbing and weaving a whole lot of Dems are doing on this, and it’s fooling no one. Now Bayh, according to one reader posting in defense of the Hoosier, co-sponsored Senator Kennedy’s Employment Non-Discrimination Act, has openly gay people on his staff and received a 100% ranking from HRC in 2002.
In my opinion, that makes the Bayh position look even worse. If you can easily opine and stake a claim on those other matters, then why does the discussion of marriage equality make you go silent and spineless?
Make your case publicly, and let the voters, particularly your gay supporters decide whether to cast a ballot for you. Don’t play cute and dodge the issue. We’re tired of the BS.
It’s not just Bayh — where do the elected Democrats (senators, reps, your governors) stand on the issue?
* For full marriage equality at state and fed level (e.g. Russ Feingold, Ted Kennedy)
* For full equality at state and fed level whether or not it’s called “marriage.”
* Opposes fed amendment: “Leave it to the states”, but “Marriage is between a man and a woman” (sHillary and most of these losers)
* Opposes fed amendment – no public position on what states should do for gay and lesbian citizens. (Evan Bayh)
* For a fed amendment: “Marriage is between a man and a woman, period.” (Harold Ford)
It’s a good time to remind folks to keep adding those to the list we’re compiling (Shakes has named it the “Phobocrats”) on elected national Dem officials and where they fall (and opponents if they are up for re-election) — with links to articles and/or sources.
Here’s a list of governors, senators, and representatives.