War Is Declared (Li'l Andy Sullivan Hissy Alert)

AndrewSullivan.com -- The Daily Dish ^ | 2/24/04 | Andrew Sullivan

[atomicpossum]

>>Rather than allow the contentious and difficult issue of equal marriage rights to be fought over in the states, rather than let politics and the law take their course, rather than keep the Constitution out of the culture wars, this president wants to drag the very founding document into his re-election campaign.<<

Andy apparently doesn't understand--if a judicial fiat declares it a constitutional right, one courtroom from the most liberal counties of the country will be used to overrule all the states. Of course, this he has no problem with.

And, he also doesn't understand (deliberately) that the states will be called upon to ratify any amendment which might make it that far toward ratification.

[zook]

You're right, of course, but I doubt he'll come out and say so. In fact, I expect him to say the opposite!

[T. Jefferson]

You can be sure this midget is a subservient female in his relationship.

[John Lenin]

The document that should be uniting the country will now be used to divide it

Abortion has divided the country since Roe v Wade, what is this man talking about ?

[Ol' Sparky]

We've got a group of sexual deviants demanding marriage redefined against the will of citizens in various states and those that oppose it are denying civil rights to others?

No, it's tyrannical judges and lawbreaking mayors that are forcing their twisted view of marriage on the rest of society, regardless of the law.

Vote Democrat, Andrew. That's where perverts with HIV seeking to have unprotected sex with others belongs.

[Publius]

President Bush said very clearly that if the courts persisted, there would be no other option but to amend the Constitution.

But politically, the odds in favor of this happening are slim. The Framers set the bar very high.

Assuming we don't get the legislatures of 34 states to petition Congress for a Convention for Proposing Amendments under Article V, we'll use the old reliable congressional method, i.e. getting two-thirds of each House of Congress to approve the amendment. That will fly without difficulty.

Then Congress much choose whether ratification should be handled by state legislatures or by state ratifying conventions. Then it goes to the states.

If the legislatures (or ratifying conventions) of 38 states ratify, then the amendment goes into the Constitution. If only 13 states say No, then it's dead.

At least 15 states will say No.

Bush's decision to go this route is wise because it puts the issue where it belongs, in the amendatory process. But by the time the amendment is voted down by 13 (or more) states, gay marriage will be a reality.

In politics, it's called "sandbagging".

[over3Owithabrain]

Sorry, Andy, blushing male brides in beards aren't mainstream. You'll have to keep logging into bareback4u.com for that kind of acceptance.

[GiveEmDubya]

I think you might be right.

What Bush has done, regardless of whether or not one agrees with the necessity of an amendment, is put Kerry's feet to the fire. Kerry must take a firm stand and quickly. Saying his patriotism was attacked or going for some mushy fence-sitting is not going to work. This could very well be a wedge issue. If it's still on the table in the fall, it will probably be THE wedge issue.

[Edit35]

"Conservatives who are in favor of the Marriage Amendment are as guilty of anti-federalism as Liberals would be if they proposed an amendment mandating gay marriage.

What if Massechusetts were to pass a law that prohibited a citizen from owning a firearm?

Would that also be a state's rights issue?

[zook]

Yesterday on ABC radio news, they led a story with a sound bite from an 11 year old boy who had accompanied his mother and her lesbian partner on a car trip of many miles to SF to obtain one of these licenses. The boy said, "I'd rather have two moms than a mom and a dad."

After a word or two of the details of the story, they repeated the boy's sound bite.

I thought to myself, "This is sick. How could any mentally healthy boy wish for two moms?" Then I thought, "ABC knows exactly what it's doing."

[CIB-173RDABN]

"The president launched a war today ...

---

Wrong, this war was started by the left many years ago. When they started to remove relegion from public life.

I am old enough to remember school assemblies for Christmas carols were sung. I can remember prayer in school. I can remember, manger scenes on public property, I can remember a cross high on a hill, that just happen to be public property. I can remember when Boy Scouts were good for young people, and homosexuals were bad.

It has taken them close to 50 years to turn it around, but they think they have won. This past two weeks in San Francisco was a celebration of their victory over middle America.

They have demonized anyone that spoke out against them, and they have invented a name "homophobe" to use against any that did not support them 100% (and by the way, why isn't "homophobe" hate speech.

By definition, a consitutional amendment is not unconstitutional.

Perhaps San Francisco was their Bridge Too Far.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Sullivan will win the battle but lose the war. The hurdles to enacting a const. amend. are so great that this one will fail, probably in the Senate before the election. Then the debate becomes how can we allow a tyranny of activist judges to replace representative democracy, on a level that even the average Joe recognizes and understands. The likely result will be a reigning in of the judicial activism loophole, closing the only chance for gays to enact most of the rest of their agenda. And in fact, though it will take a while, the reformed courts will eventually reverse this faux-'right' to gay marriage.

This is their movements attack on Russia, and winter is about the arrive.

[William McKinley]

You are falling for the obfusication the Democrats are hoping you fall for.

The status quo is that if Massachusettes legalizes gay marriage, every other state has to recognize the marriage, and every resident of the other states could visit Massachusettes to get married to a member of their own gender.

The status quo is a distinct absence of federalism.

If you think it is a states issue, then you absolutely must support an amendment of some sort. Because without one, it is NOT a states issue.

[Diddle E. Squat]

It won't get out of the Senate. The Dem fig leaf will be "While I am against gay marriage, a const. amend. is the wrong way to do this."

[cweese]

...good god that woman is UGLY! whenever i see her on fox news, her words are even uglier!...

[Right Wing Professor]

What if Massechusetts were to pass a law that prohibited a citizen from owning a firearm?

What do you mean, 'what if..?'

[wayoverontheright]

It is petty, foolish, selfish, yet another embrace of victimhood and to me, under the category of "be careful what you wish for" for gays to be pushing this, that said, I agree with you, this is a states rights issue.

It would be a good thing if a few states start to allow gay marriage, because as the consequences befall them, and gays realize the rights they GIVE UP when they make it legal, this issue will slither back into the closet.

[Faraday]

This battle for the soul of America will not be resolved with a Constitutional Amendment (though the gay marriage issue may be). It is sorrowful to see the loss of an ally such as Sullivan. A political realignment should occur around this. The degree of social discord will depend on the left, but we must be prepared for levels of struggle both legal and extra-legal.

[AppyPappy]

however desirable or undesirable gay marriage is, it is up to the states to decide

Horsedroppings. State recognize each other's marriages. That's why Utah had to drop polygamy.

[conserv13]

I agree. Thanks.