This campaign season would be an EXCELLENT time to begin the process of introducing a Constitutional Amendment to protect marriage. Everybody on record, let’s go.
Do you seriously believe there is any point to trying to pass an amendment when winning a simple majority election is seriously in doubt?
For some highly obscure reason, when people can't win an ordinary election they seem to think the cure is an amendment, which is at least an order of magnitude more difficult.
For instance, there are 99 houses of state legislatures. 13 of them not voting to ratify the amendment would prevent it from passing.
Does anyone seriously contend there aren't 13 states where at least one house would not vote to ratify?
The reason DOMA passed in 1996 was because there was not enough support for a constitutional amendment. There is surely less support now, sixteen years later.
Unless and until the broad social consensus that “sexual orientation” is a real, fixed entity, like “blue eyes-brown eyes”, as the propagandists like to say, is changed homosexual “marriages” are going to be mandated within a few years.
“This campaign season would be an EXCELLENT time to begin the process of introducing a Constitutional Amendment to protect marriage. Everybody on record, let’s go.”
Too late for that now.
The “window of opportunity” by which to do this passed about ten years ago. It won’t be back.
The leftists are using EXACTLY the same “plan of attack” for homosexual marriage as they used forty years ago for winning the Roe v. Wade decision.
That is, “convert” a few states first. Then launch court challenges from a few other states (U.S. Supreme Court will usually not agree to decide an issue like this until conflicting decisions from more than one federal court district arise). Finally, “go for the big one”.
There’s no guarantee that they’ll win in the Supreme Court, given the Court’s current makeup. Although as another poster mentioned, Justice Kennedy is an “unknown vote”.
But the left is patient — they have won this contest in a growing number of “blue” states, and with each victory, they (and not we) are “closer to the prize”. They will “wait out” the Roberts Court, if necessary, knowing that some day they may have a more sympathetic Court. And then, they will make their charge.
As you mentioned, “everybody on record”. To my knowledge, I was one of the first individuals anywhere to promote the idea of a “Marriage Amendment” to the U.S. Constitution, right here on this forum (in another life and time, so to speak). Years ago, before the “Defense of Marriage” act, this might have been possible, as even a number of democrats might have voted for it to protect themselves politically. But they wouldn’t vote for it now. It would be all-but impossible to win the two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress to get an amendment passed and “out to the states”.
Sad to say, Republicans and conservatives passed up their chance to get a Marriage Amendment done — they shied away from it because [for many wishy-washy Republicans] it would be “too divisive” an action. So, they “compromised” with a “Defense of Marriage” Act instead.
Who would have thought that such a law could be overturned by the Supreme Court? Well, think again.
I can’t predict whether the Supreme Court will eventually overturn the DMA. Just too hard to call. What, specifically, does the United States Constitution say about “marriage”? If it says little or nothing, does that give Congress the right to regulate or codify it? Again, this is ticking time bomb, and it may blow up in unpredictable ways.
Of course, if concept of marriage was “codified” into the Constitution, this wouldn’t be the case. That’s what SHOULD have been done, but the elected representatives “of our side” backed away from doing their duty in a timely manner.
One must “strike while the iron is hot”. That includes “political irons”, as well.
The Pubbies let this iron grow cold. It won’t make it’s mark now.
Like you, I wish I could be more optimistic about this. But I’m a cold-hearted realist at the core, and that’s how I see it...
Right! that’s the only way to stop this idiot judges from changing thousands of years of human history that says marriage is between a man and a woman.