-

February 24, 2004

Gavin Newsom Amendment

It is quite likely now that the US Constitution will be amended, quite possibly before the November election, to bar gay marriages. The actual proposed amendment (from thomas.loc.gov; H.J. Res 56/S.J. Res 26) is:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
Most readings of this sugggest that this prevents Congress or any state legislature or initiative from enacting any law that allows other than "one man and one woman" from entering into matrimony. Some think it merely prevents judicial activism. I think the former is unfortunately correct.

Am I happy about this? Hardly. But I've been saying this was going to happen, and the San Francisco in-your-face challenge to existing law has made it nearly certain. Now Bush is formally requesting Congress to approve the amendment and send it on to the states.

A few months ago there was little chance the amendment would get out of Congress, but radicals in the gay community have forced the issue in ways that are annoying, offensive and undemocratic. People that have no big issue with gay marriage are now turning their backs. Gavin Newsom, et al, have made a mistake of historic proportions.

I truly hope that the gay community realizes the part it has played in this and comes to its collective senses before it's too late to stop this radical amendment. But I doubt they will. In fact, I expect actions that will make passage a quick slam dunk.

UPDATE: See also John Fund in the Opinion Journal

ANOTHER UPDATE: It seems that the amendment is failing, for now. Oxblog lists a nose count that indicates that 40 or so Senators intend to vote NO. However, this could well change if things get out of hand again. Since I'd prefer to see the amendment fail, I hope that people can avoid rocking the boat for a while.

Posted by Kevin Murphy at February 24, 2004 09:43 AM | TrackBack
Comments

It's not going to happen...nada...it would require 2/3 of the Senate, for starters, and that means all the Republicans (and they aren't all for it), and 1/3 of the Democrats (and hardly any are for it!)

Then, it has to go through the ratification process, which is not going to take 5 months...the ERA took the better part of a decade before it was shot down.


cheshirecat

Posted by: cheshirecat at February 24, 2004 09:48 PM

That prediction is based on the assumption that people like Newsom will commit further provocations.

Note that both the House and Senate passed the DoM act overwhelmingly, and this is an election year. Note also that the 18-year-old-vote Amendment passed in a few months. The process can be surprisingly quick if the will is there.

However, I suspect that, if an Amendment clears Congress, it will be substantially reqorked from the current proposal, and will not bar state legislative action. The primary discomfort is with state and feneral court activists.

I expect something more along these lines:

Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed, in the absence of specific language, to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups, or to unions other than that between one man and one woman.

Note that I oppose the current FMA proposal. I'm just really upset with the gay activist's belief that pushing and shoving will help their cause.


Posted by: Kevin Murphy at February 25, 2004 08:59 AM