Gay Marriage Amendment Fails in Senate [from 2006; better time to revive?]

Well, the legal pandemonium has ensued and it's not being resolved "properly" in all 50 states. It's obvious that all the states will not be able to stop the same-sex "marraige," whether through legislative or by judicial fiat some states will get it (CA, MA, VT) and then the "marriage" will be "recognized" in other states, by the same judicial chicanery. The only way to deal with it permanently before it became imposed, entrenched and/or accepted enough to become de facto in all states, is through national constitutional amendment now.

At this point, there are easily 40 states that would pass the amendment defining a marriage as DOMA defined it. It could also become a litmus test and a nightmare for Democrats (and some Republicans in primaries) running for Congress, especially for the Senate, as well as for state legislatures and offices. Instead of playing catch-up and being defensive, Republicans can start playing from strength.

Now could also be the good time for other simple Amendments (and litmus tests for primaries and general state and national elections) : "English is a national language of the United States" and "clarification of the citizenship" clause in the Forteenth Amendment.

This will not lose non-social-conservatives from Republican party, it might even attract many non-socons to the party, as many people don't like this to be shoved into their face time and time again, and having their votes overturned by few people in judiciary or legislature. It's a winning issue for conservatives and the Republicans even in many "blue" states, much more sound and popular than failed liberal ERA amendment drive ever was. And it's the only way to both assure the permanent resolution (instead of unsuccessfully chasing it court by court, state by state) and tamp down the liberal judicial activism. For every action there is equal and opposite reaction.

In light of recent brazen decisions by judges in AZ on immigration SB1070 and in CA on Proposition 8 (and other less well known state issues), this will be a popular issue as THE solution - as people feel powerless and looking for a way to make their votes count - requiring the election of people who can make it poossible into the Senate and state legislatures.

Forgive me for failing to see anything “conservative” about shoving one’s personal moral views in every State’s face. I’m against same-sex marriage and would vote to preserve marriage’s proper definition in my state, but if the majority of another state’s taxpayers want to re-invent English and history, it’s their poison to drink.

OPPOSITION TO MARRIAGE AMENDMENT BASED ON HYPOCRISY AND CYNICISM
By Don Feder

The nation just witnessed the dreary spectacle of the most powerful deliberative body in the world weighing the most important social issue of our time – an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defending traditional marriage –in a debate dominated by hypocrisy, cynicism and a concerted effort at reality-avoidance.

Democrats – and half a dozen Republicans – wouldn’t even allow the amendment to come up for a vote. A move to cut off a filibuster (60 votes needed) failed 49 to 48.

“A vote for this amendment is a vote for bigotry,” slurred the senior Senator from Massachusetts. In so saying, Edward Kennedy labeled all 8 U.S. Catholic cardinals – leaders of his Church – bigots, not to mention that notorious hatemonger, Benedict XVI (who also opposes Brokeback Mountain marriages).

The party of perversion was in rare form. I mean perversion of the truth, not the other kind of perversion – which they also favor.

Howard Dean had a new scream: “Democrats are committed to fighting this hateful, divisive amendment.”

What about not allowing a brother and sister to marry, or a man to marry four women, or a teacher to marry her 13-year-old student, or a man to marry a horse – is that hateful and divisive too, Governor?

The party whose last president didn’t know what the meaning of “is” is, — the party that condoned Clinton’s perjury — mobilized its full armada of deceit, deception and slander to misrepresent an amendment which is the essence of simplicity.

In pushing the amendment, the president and Republican congressmen were “playing politics” (i.e., using an issue for political advantage) they whined, something Democrats would never dream of doing – except with Social Security, gun control, abortion, hate-crimes legislation and any other issue on which they decide to pander to part of their constituency.....

http://www.donfeder.com/articles/0606MPAvote.pdf

I’m against same-sex marriage and would vote to preserve marriage’s proper definition in my state

Don't count on it getting onto the ballot! I'm from Massachusetts! I know that frustration first-hand!

I am not sure you've read my entire post or got the correct gist of it.

Forgive me for failing to see anything “conservative” about shoving one’s personal moral views in every State’s face.

The shoving is being done by liberal legislators and judges, often despite their constituents' wishes and/or the overwhelming majority of votes... We've seen this in several states and/or court circuits.

... but if the majority of another state’s taxpayers want to re-invent English and history, it’s their poison to drink.

That may be true in case of abortion (which BTW, thanks to few justices in SCOTUS years ago in Doe vs Wade, is not up to the states) but in the case of definition of "marriage" it's not only being imposed on the taxpayers and voters of those states who voted against it, but it's also coming to a state near you because some judge will decide that their votes also don;'t count and that the state and the taxpayers / voters / citizens of that state will have to "recognize" the marriage... because of (fill in the language of the decision of the federal judge in CA / MA / AZ / etc. on "equal protection under the law") and you will "not have the standing to appeal it").

Translation: it's being shoved now in your [state's] face and they tell you that you need to, effectively, shut up because you don't have the "right" or the "standing" to do anything about it.

I’m against same-sex marriage and would vote to preserve marriage’s proper definition in my state...

If that's what you want, then you should see that "recognizing" definitions and the rights of "marriage" is no longer going to be up to individual states, no matter what their constitution or voters / citizens / taxpayers or legislature said, by judicial fiat. We can start changing that and doing something about it now, or wait until they shove it in your face.

Liberals spend years and decades to reach their goals, use every opportunity available to them to buy votes, change perceptions, pervert definitions or subvert and nullify laws. Conservatives don't wake up until it's too late and then spend their time powerlessly grumbling about fait accompli and talking about anger and "pitchforks".

Now is a great time to not only do something about these "cultural" / "social" / "moral" issues on the level where it will count, but also use these liberal overreaches as the chance to take back the GOP. The DOMA definition of marriage, English as a national language (not forbidding others, but requiring a single unified one) and clarification of 14th amendment "citizenship" requirement to prevent legalistic abuse of it for pure partisan political purposes are not really socon issues - they are the ones that overwhelming majority of people (but not "elite") actually do or can agree on, because they understand that these are good for the country overall.

s/b "Roe vs Wade" - lapsus digiti

From Catch-22s Mounting for Democrats - FR / American Thinker, 2010 August 04, by Trevor Thomas (posted by 2ndDivisionVet)

Interestingly, gay marriage and immigration are very similar yokes for the Democrats to bear in the upcoming elections. In early July, just as with the Arizona law, a federal district judge declared unconstitutional the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Also, as with the Arizona law, DOMA (and, for that matter, traditional marriage) is very popular with Americans.
While he was a candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2006, Obama supported the repeal of DOMA. He was also opposed to DOMA after his election to the Senate, during his campaign for president, and after his election as president. However, when the federal district judge declared DOMA unconstitutional, Obama's administration found itself in the unenviable position of having to defend a law with which they disagree. Of course, this leaves supporters of gay marriage, a significant portion of the Democrat's political base, outraged.
DOMA passed Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate and a vote of 342-67 in the House. Also, at an average rate of 67.5%, voters in U.S. states have gone 31-for-31 in their efforts to ban gay marriage. (Thirty states have passed constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage.)
In other words, traditional marriage is about as popular with Americans (if not more so) as the Arizona law. Thus, gay marriage is as toxic an issue for the Democrats as immigration. Once again, Obama and the Democrats face a catch-22. .....

Interestingly, while judges in these cases refer to the federal issue of "equal protection under the law" to reject the Tenth Amendment argument for voters rights to states' constitutional amendments - the gays in the states they are suing or using legislatures to accept the "same sex marriage" are utilizing Tenth Amendment (states' rights) to invalidate federal DOMA law. They are having it both ways:

Tenth Amendment Jurisprudence Serves to Invalidate DOMA Provision (MA) - Gaypatriot.net, 2010 July 09, by B. Daniel Blatt

When I first read U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled that portions of DOMA were unconstitutional because the legislation “interferes with the right a state to define marriage“, I wondered which provision in the federal constitution he used to justify his ruling.
Now I like the result because I believe that same-sex partners should be allowed Medicaid benefits, the issue in this case. And those seeking those benefits had sought the protections of marriage. But, I feared it may have been based on shady constitutional logic where the judge (or justice) found his justification in illuminations refracted from reflections in the charter’s penumbrae.
Thus, when I looked into matter, I was delighted to learn that Judge Tauro had rooted his decision in the Tenth Amendment. That provision reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” So, favoring a federal government of limited powers, I think he’s on pretty solid ground. .....

We can go from court to court to fight these ideologues in black robes, but at some point in some state (like in CA) they'll tell you that you have no rights and no representation because you have no "standing" i.e., "shut up and take it":

DOMA and the 10th Amendment -OutsideTheBeltway.com, 2010 July 09, by James Joyner

Yale lawprof Jack Balkin, a gay marriage supporter, nonetheless thinks yesterday’s ruling by a federal judge declaring the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional is likely to collapse on appeal.

Judge Tauro uses the Tenth Amendment – much beloved by conservatives – to strike down another law much beloved by conservatives – DOMA. There is a kind of clever, “gotcha” element to this logic. It is as if he’s saying: “You want the Tenth Amendment? I’ll give you the Tenth Amendment!” But in the long run, this sort of argument, clever as it is, is not going to work. Much as I applaud the cleverness – which is certain to twist both liberal and conservative commentators in knots – I do not support the logic.
The arguments of Judge Tauro’s two opinions are at war with each other. He wants to say that marriage is a distinctly state law function with which the federal government may not interfere. But the federal government has been involved in the regulation of family life and family formation since at least Reconstruction, and especially so since the New Deal. Much of the modern welfare state and tax code defines families, regulates family formation and gives incentives (some good and some bad) with respect to marriages and families. Indeed, social conservatives have often argued for using the federal government’s taxing and spending powers to create certain types of incentives for family formation and to benefit certain types of family structures; so too have liberals. .....

When something like marriage - while used extensively in laws and courts and tax code - is not specifically "defined" it allows all kind of mischief and redefinition and sophistry by lawyers and judges... When it's taken beyond legal sophistry to the point of systemic abuse and breaking of legal system to accomplish certain political goals and agenda, it's time to take actions available to citizens by constitution. Saying "It doesn't affect me now" and "I am for federalism" doesn't even push the can down the road, it pushes it into Never-Never-Land.

That's the only reason there was a need for DOMA and why now there is need for the national constitutional amendment - simply to "define back" marriage again as it had been understood to be defined since the beginning of the United States. Marriage is not and should not be about Medicare or Medicaid benefits.

Yes, no better time than now to force those who are running for Congress and the Senate in what their real values, and beliefs are.
Make them show their true colors.

Forgive me for failing to see anything “conservative” about shoving one’s personal moral views in every State’s face. I’m against same-sex marriage and would vote to preserve marriage’s proper definition in my state, but if the majority of another state’s taxpayers want to re-invent English and history, it’s their poison to drink.

that not the case here its judges ruling by judicial fiet.thats what that SOB in California did

The only thing you can realistically do to restore the vote of the people is to repeal the 14th amendment. It is the 14th amendment that enabled the Federal court to deny the people the right to modify their constitution as to protect the definition of marriage, protect unborn human life, protect our right to choose who we do business with, protect our right to be treated equally by the government on the account of race.(affirmative action).

Given the way that the 14th Amendment has been worded, and the court has used it, we would require an amendment of infinite length to protect the infinite number of rights which the court could could uses the same amendment to usurp.

We are better of repealing the whole thing and replacing it with a simple Prohibition against Government discrimination on the account of race.

I’m against same-sex marriage and would vote to preserve marriage’s proper definition in my state, but if the majority of another state’s taxpayers want to re-invent English and history, it’s their poison to drink.

You show that you misunderstand the purpose and effect of a federal marriage amendment. If one were passed, it would do the same thing as DOMA, only it would be a part of the Constitution, out of reach of all but the most anarchist political opponents, and only by repeal. Any insane state will still have the "right" to call anything they want "marriage" within the bounds of their own state, but the rest of the nation would be soundly immunized from this insanity, as would the federal government. We would not have rogue judges calling "A", "B" as we now have; there would be a strict boundary across which none could pass.

Yes, no better time than now to force those who are running for Congress and the Senate in what their real values, and beliefs are.

For most of those who voted "NO" in 2006 it's too late to hold their feet to the fire - vote didn't help them and, if anything, only helped to demoralize even more the conservative base of Republican party in 2006 and bring Nancy and Harry show to DC political theatre.

..... [Judd] Gregg said in a statement that he had switched sides on the issue after becoming convinced that a Massachusetts Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in that state would not bleed into other jurisdictions. "Fortunately, such legal pandemonium has not ensued," he said. "The past two years have shown that federalism, not more federal laws, is a viable and preferable approach."
The other Republicans who voted against the amendment are: Sens. Lincoln D. Chafee (R.I.); Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe, both of Maine; and John E. Sununu (N.H.). Two Democrats voted in favor: Sens. Robert C. Byrd (W.Va.) and Ben Nelson (Neb.). .....
Explaining his opposition on the floor yesterday, [John] McCain said that although he believes that expanding the definition of marriage may be "of questionable public value," he also believes that the debate "is currently and properly being resolved in different ways, in 50 different states."

But for some (Sen. John McCain) it could be a reasonable issue to raise and an interesting question to ask in the primary - "How is that vote working for ya? How would you vote today and if yes, why weren't you smart enough then and how difficult was it to see where it was going? If the same federal law - DOMA - needs to be defended in all 50 states, would not it make sense to "define" it on national constitutional level? Will you sponsor an amendment vote?"

Also could be a good campaign issue in Nevada Senate campaign, against "conservative" Harry Reid, and many other states. Scott Brown in MA, a RINO that he is, might even have a chance to remain in Senate if he runs on this issue in 2012... etc. etc.

"DOMA passed Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate and a vote of 342-67 in the House. Also, at an average rate of 67.5%, voters in U.S. states have gone 31-for-31 in their efforts to ban gay marriage. (Thirty states have passed constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage.)"

The language used here is unfortunate because it is incorrect. No legislation has "banned" anything; the existing true definition of marriage has merely been recognized and codified into law. "gay marriage" hasn't been banned any more than plural marriage, or child marriage, or incestuous marriage has been "banned." We willfully walk on putrid ground when we borrow the false jargon of the anarchist left.

We are better of repealing the whole thing and replacing it with a simple Prohibition against Government discrimination on the account of race.

I think people are so mad ("Boiling Over" as Peggy Noonan said in one of her more lucid columns) right now, that marriage and English language amendments would catch fire, with some states lining up for preliminary / "show of hands" votes in support of amendments. Throw the "clarification" / rewording / replacement of the 14th Amendment on the barbie and I'm sure it will get a fair shot in the same states. Nothing wrong with "bundling" of several simple single separate amendments into the same election cycles (not into one amendment). Politicians would have to choose where they stand - these are all simple and clear enough for them to try and wiggle out.

Maybe someone on FR can start an activism thread to get suggestions and criticism on these 3 amendment issues (repeal of 17th is getting a lot of play on FR, but I don't understand how it will be an improvement or how to explain its relevancy to issues of the day, and it's futile anyway - not going to happen - so it's a waste of time and effort, better spent on relevant current "hot button" issues).

The language used here is unfortunate because it is incorrect. No legislation has "banned" anything; the existing true definition of marriage has merely been recognized and codified into law... We willfully walk on putrid ground when we borrow the false jargon...

A good point, and you are absolutely right! I suppose the author of the article referred to the effective consequence of the states' amendments, but it would be better if he used the actual language of the law rather than mass media spin / redefinition. Hopefully the author will correct this important "nuance" in his future writings.

“Maybe someone on FR can start an activism thread to get suggestions and criticism on these 3 amendment issues (repeal of 17th is getting a lot of play on FR, but I don’t understand how it will be an improvement or how to explain its relevancy to issues of the day, and it’s futile anyway - not going to happen - so it’s a waste of time and effort, better spent on relevant current “hot button” issues).”

The 17th Amendment is the amendment that made the senate an effectively redundant version of the house thus enabling the explosion of Federal power over the 20th century after its passage in 1913.

This is because the original function of the Senate was to represent and protect the power interest of the Individual State’s against Federal encouragement, thus helping to maintain the power balance of Federalism.

When we passed the 17th amendment in 1913 Senators started representing the policy interest of the people rather then simply preforming their core function of jealously protecting the power of their state to rule itself.
This is because believe it or not a significant enough section of our voting population either doesn’t care or doesn’t know about the important of Federalism in our American System and as a result will not consistently elect senators that will keep Washington D.C. From passing laws, ratifying treaty’s or selecting judge and excursive branch officers that will seek to usurp the same power.

The State legislator who weld that power of the State on the other hand most likely will want to keep themselves relevant. As a result the Original constitution wisely vested the power of selecting senators in them not the people.

But the 17th amendment broke this vital check on the progress of Federal encouragements. and enabled just what I discriminate to happen again, and again, and again. This is why the Federal Government was ale to expand so rapidly in power during the 20th century. It’s not just because the people forgot about their states, their constitution and their American system of Federalism. If American understood theses things by in large they would never have radiated the 17th amendment.

Its because the Senate stopped doing its job and instead became a redundant body of policy making.