Proposed amendment banning gay marriage fails
Today, the Senate defeated a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. [Washington Post] Lou Dobbs has an excellent column calling the proposed constitutional amendment "sheer nonsense." [CNN] One thing Dobbs doesn't mention is how out of place such an amendment would seem.
Only six amendments have been passed since World War II, and all of them dealt with electoral procedures of one sort or another. Amendments XXII-XXVII set Presidential term limits (XXII), provided electoral representation for the District of Columbia (XXIII), banned poll taxes (XXIV), clarified the line of sucession in cases of Presidential death or resignation (XXV), set the voting age at 18 (XXVI), and banned in-term raises for congressional salaries (XXVII). [National Archives] Wouldn't a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage be an absurd addition to that list?
And wouldn't a federal ban on states adopting gay marriage go against the doctrine of "federalism," which conservatives always claim as one of their key principles? Once again, it seems that the far right only believes in "states' rights" when it helps promote their ideology. In my opinion, federalism seems like the inevitable answer to the gay marriage issue - eventually, the more liberal states will probably adopt it, while the more conservative states will never allow it.
The public policy exception to the full faith and credit clause would probably allow states to refuse to recognize other states' gay marriages (this will be decided in the courts). [Slate] Moreover, the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act allows states to refuse to recognize other states' gay marriage laws, and 39 states have their own defense of marriage acts. [Slate] In other words, it is extremely unlikely that conservative states will ever be forced to recognize gay marriages - and this is why a conservative like Dobbs is calling the proposed amendment "an insult to the intelligence of every voter, Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative." [CNN]
Only six amendments have been passed since World War II, and all of them dealt with electoral procedures of one sort or another. Amendments XXII-XXVII set Presidential term limits (XXII), provided electoral representation for the District of Columbia (XXIII), banned poll taxes (XXIV), clarified the line of sucession in cases of Presidential death or resignation (XXV), set the voting age at 18 (XXVI), and banned in-term raises for congressional salaries (XXVII). [National Archives] Wouldn't a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage be an absurd addition to that list?
And wouldn't a federal ban on states adopting gay marriage go against the doctrine of "federalism," which conservatives always claim as one of their key principles? Once again, it seems that the far right only believes in "states' rights" when it helps promote their ideology. In my opinion, federalism seems like the inevitable answer to the gay marriage issue - eventually, the more liberal states will probably adopt it, while the more conservative states will never allow it.
The public policy exception to the full faith and credit clause would probably allow states to refuse to recognize other states' gay marriages (this will be decided in the courts). [Slate] Moreover, the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act allows states to refuse to recognize other states' gay marriage laws, and 39 states have their own defense of marriage acts. [Slate] In other words, it is extremely unlikely that conservative states will ever be forced to recognize gay marriages - and this is why a conservative like Dobbs is calling the proposed amendment "an insult to the intelligence of every voter, Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative." [CNN]
posted at 8:38:00 PM | permalink
<< Home