US Senate reintroduces "Defense of Marriage" amendment

[ypsidan04]

Dear Friend,

On January 24, 2005, Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO) reintroduced the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA) on the Senate floor - making it one of the first items of business on the very first day the Bush administration's second term.

In light of the many serious issues that our country is facing, it is absolutely outrageous that a small group of right-wing Senators would make discriminating against GLBT people their TOP priority right now.

Stand with me in opposing discrimination in our constitution. Click here to take action and STOP this hateful amendment:

http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campa...oppose/forward

Those of you in the US, please click above and tell your Senators that this is the wrong thing to do.

[Khartoun2004]

This sucks. I should have known the republicans wouldn't waste anytime in trying to pass this fucking amendment. The worst part is they probably have the numbers in the house and senate to get it passed... and after nov. 2 we know there are enough states to then ratify it.

[PowerPuff Grrl]

Wasn't this the entire reason as to why Bush got re-elected?
Religious voters chose him because he upheld "family values" and now he is giving them their reward.

Sorry dudes, you know it is going to happen.
Just pray that there are some socially progressive Republicans like Rudolph Gulianni that'll stop the likes of Santorum.
Hehe, Santorum.
God bless you Dan Savage!

[ypsidan04]

and after nov. 2 we know there are enough states to then ratify it.

Well it was only 11 states. And the process is quite complicated:

There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how it can be amended. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both halves of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be approved by three-fourths of states. The amendment as passed may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.

It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification

So both Houses need a 2/3rd's majority (67 Senators and 290 Representatives), when neither got even a simple majority last time. And then 3/4th's of states (38) need a majority of both of their Houses to pass it. That's a tall order for something this controversial.

And surveys have shown that 60% of Americans believe that same sex partners should have the rights and privileges of marriage. I dont know the exact wording of this amendment or the previous one, but if it's like the one that was passed in Michigan and a few other states, it not only bans same sex marriage, but also bans civil unions and does not allow gays to receive any rights that married couples get. Supporters kept saying "this is only about marriage" and "no current benefits will be taken away" but that's just not true in the case of Michigan. Sooner or later people are going to start suing companies and organizations who give out domestic partner benefits, because that is quite possibly in violation of the new state amendment.