Religious Right Seeks ... Constitutional Convention To Ban Gay Marriage

Earlier this month, efforts to ban gay marriage by amending the Constitution failed badly in Senate. Now the religious right is considering appealing to state legislatures to call a Constitutional Convention under an obscure provision of Article 5 that would allow amendments to the Constitution without congressional approval. The Evans-Novak report has the details:

Meeting after the big failure at the offices of the social-conservative Family Research Council, the top leaders of the marriage movement — Catholic, Protestant and Mormon leaders among others — discussed the possibility of an unprecedented Constitutional Convention. Two-thirds (34) of the state legislatures would have to call for such a convention — which could be done only with great difficulty. Even then, no one knows what such a convention would look like or what sort of amendments could result from it.

Right-wing pundit Bob Novak, who writes the report, appears to be pushing the idea even as he calls it “rather fanciful.” Novak argues banning gay marriage through a constitutional convention would be difficult but not impossible:

(I)f such a convention were to pass a marriage amendment, we estimate that 28 states would easily ratify it. Another eight states may do so only after a protracted and bloody political fight (which could span an election cycle). That leaves supporters with two more states to go to reach the threshold of 38 (three-fourths), and only the most difficult ground to fight on — states such as Maine, Rhode Island, Oregon and Nevada are probably not ideal places to win such a fight, although not all would be unwinnable.

<snip>

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/15/constitutional-convention-gay-marriage/

Evil, hateful, disgusting, ignorant bastards. They get up hating and they go to bed hating.

as our f*&^%$& leader says "bring it on" Fuck them all - you will see more than blood in the streets if they pull that shit - Stonewall was nothing compared to what they are asking for with this bullshit

The last time a Constitutional convention was called for it was short 2 states and 2 territories were about to be admitted, Arizona and New Mexico, who expressed interest in the convention. The issue was direct election of Senators. Senators panicked and passed the amendment, afraid of what else would come out of the convention.
The same thing will happen here if it looks like enough states will sign on to this. Moderate politicians will back sending the amendment to the states rather then have a whole bunch more stuff passed in a convention.

And welcome to DU!

Constitutional convention? Even by 'pub standards those are lunatic fringers.

The amendment was not intended to pass, not even all 'pubs voted for it.

The point is demagoguery to get re-elected. They can say "We tried, but those evil liberals foiled us again."

Next up: Flag burning.

The Constitution is a set of instructions on how to set up a governing body and the amendment process limits the powers citizens grant to their government. The Constitution is not an instrument to limit the behavior of individual citizens.

And it does not grant rights; it limits the government's ability to suppress rights citizens already have.

A Constitutional convention opens up the entire Constitution to any amendment that may arise during the convention. It can not be limited to consideration of one issue.

The "unprecedentedness" of it will put a spotlight on the issue, long overdue. That convention will be covered, and it WILL become the central focus of argument, whether conservatives like it or not. I would add one tiny caveat though. The referendum should be not whether to amend the constitution, but which versions to use: marriage is a legal union between two consenting adults designed to protect their property, rights of inheritance and encourage a responsible and stable society, or marriage is just between a dude and a chick and all you other homos gotta stay single.

Social judo. Demand the convention and then beat them over their pathetic lame-ass (thank you Skinner :P) heads with it. While they can get away with making illogical unchallenged statements about how protecting marriage from gays encourages heterosexuals to get married on the senate floor, it is a lot harder to say something like that in a public televised "convention" and not be made a laughing stock.

Plus, the convention will go down in history as yet another black mark on American bigotry run amok. We didn't learn after slavery, after the KKK, after the lynchings of the 20th century and segregation and banning interracial marriage and the WHOLE FUCKING REST OF THE WORLD leaving us culturally in the dust, but we just had to go and do it again, just had to find another minority to hang from a lamp post, except ironically this time around some of the original "oppressed" are more than happy to help coil the rope. Can't wait until Europe flexes some muscle on this too, and the EU actually does have something to say about it.

Yes. Go for it. Even if we lose dismally, it will change nothing at all and it will tell this nation and the world that America's top priority is quashing gay marriage, above all else, which appears to be true.

We will still be gay, we will still live together and still have families, we will still have friends and people who care about us who aren't gay, and we will still get through the day just as we always have.

If we "lose dismally" you don't know what could happen. Good luck living together and having families, waiting for the religious police to come knocking at your door. Good luck to your poor children, having to grow up in fear and shame.

And you're not JUST gay. A constitutional convention is limited only by the imagination of the participants. If they had enough states for banning gay marriage, they could have the same number of states for enshrining a Christian government. We just don't know.

And we'd be nuts to want to find out.

They would be nuts to try to pull this off.

We are everywhere, and they can't tell us apart by our skin color this time.

They had better be fucking scared shitless.

I'm all for it. They brought it up, and they will do ANYTHING AT ALL to keep it going now. Can't put that evil toothpaste back in the tube; sooner or later it will come to pass, and the question isn't about how well to hide from it, but how to confront it.

Anyway, the reality is that these people exist, here in America. "Not fighting" is not going to make them go away.

is an insane way to do it.

if you insist.

No, I'm being rhetorical and a little hyperbolic; however if it is inevitable I would certainly not waste a lot of time talking about how insane it was of them.

I also think that a call to a constitutional convention in and of itself would be like a procedural call to reinstate the draft, basically a political stunt.

If they want to play this as a stunt, I want to call their bluff.

I would be interested in seeing the process. Two ways to safeguard the procedure would be to A) have the legislatures call a convention specifically to address one specific issue, and/or B) have the first order of business for the convention be to settle issue to be addressed and adopt operating procedures that would prohibit adding any new issues.

That aside, remember that a proposed amendment is immediately invalidated with a "Nay" vote by 13 states, as that makes it impossible to get the minimum needed to ratifiy. I don't think any such amendment would pass.

limited in the way that you suggest.

And why would we want to have the legistures call a convention at all? If we have a majority, we can go through the normal amendment procedure.

And the Constitution gives the option of calling a convention specifically to the state legislatures:



There is no reason why the initiative couldn't be used to force a state legislature to act, and there is no reason why a legislature could not hold a referendum to get the will of the people. But ultimately, the authority rests directly with the state legislature and not with the people.

found out some disturbing information. I happened to bring up how silly it was to deny gays marriage rights and was informed that if they hadn't made the choice to be gay, they could get married. I told them that it was no more choice than their being heterosexual. They replied that we are all born heterosexual and that gays make the choice to become gay. I honestly had no answer for this logic and was hoping to find some here.

come on now

who would want to hated as much as gay people are by our enemies; we're verbally and physically attacked; we lose members of our community to killers

we're seen as the spawn of Satan by some

They are in no position whatever to make that choice. I and most of the gay people I've talked to, however, felt ...different, as young as the age of five.

You may also want to tell them that there is a recent study involving odors produced by the body that established a possible link between the 'wiring', if you will, if the sense of smell. It seem that gay men are more attracted by the odors produced by other gay men than they are in those produced by women; the study also (I may be wrong on this particular point) suggested that heterosexual women were more attracted to the odors produced by heterosexual men than they were to those produced by gay men.

So there may well indeed be a physical component to it, which could argue for a genetic foundation. Regardless, that's only one difference I've read of among many. There do indeed seem to be physical differences, things present from birth, that strongly influence human sexual behavior.

Notice, I did not say 'control'. I could act like I was attracted to a woman, but it wouldn't be true and there would be no emotion there at all. I would be in the truest sense living a lie.

Finally, you may want to point out to them that it's deeply wrong to expect people not of their religion to behave in a manner according TO their religion. That's what the Wahabbists (you can say 'islamofascist', since they'll probably better identify with that term) like the Taliban et al do to the people in the Middle East.

But you could throw this back at them...

All right, so when did you decide *not* to be gay. To use their argument, if someone chooses to be gay, then we're all, by their own words, making a choice on sexual orientation. Choosing is choosing - whether choosing for or against. If people who chose to be gay have the ability to choose their orientation, that means bisexuality is the norm, using their own logic.

I believe the only group of people who make a choice is people who are lucky enough to be attracted physically to both sexes. I happen to be one of them. I'm smack dab in the middle of the Kinsey scale. I suspect people who believe other people choose to be gay are also lucky enough to be bisexual. They're just not smart enough to see it that way.

I don't discriminate on the basis of gender, though I am more compatable, emotionally, with women. And yes, I am a woman, though a very masculine woman (in looks and dress.)

I'm probably not explaining it right. Anyone else want to give it a shot?

gay man, that its a choice. Talking to 20,000,000 other gay people would not bring them around. I was beating my head against the wall. Of course this evolution thing is just a myth, too. Unbelievable.

I decided, hey, you know what, I think I'd like to live life as a hated minority. It would be fun to have trailer trash tell lies about me for my entire time on earth. I'd like to face a future where I can't marry the one I love, I have no job protections, I can't fight for the country of my birth and I can't live out my life without politicians using me as a wedge issue to drum up hatred from the aforementioned trailer trash.

I sat down, wrote all out the pros and cons and then decided that from then on big breasts would leave me cold and big, muscular arms would leave me sweating.

I mean, for Chrissakes, what 13 year old wouldn't make that decision, right?

When I was a boy, all the other boys and I felt the same way about girls. They were icky. Girls were a source of cooties and girl-germs. The first time we found out what a french kiss was, we all had the same reaction, "You stick your TONGUE in a girl's MOUTH??? GROOOSSSS!!!" And any boy caught associating with a girl was taunted mercilessly, "John and Mary sitting in a tree. K-I-S-S-I-N-G..."

Somewhere along the way all the other boys changed, but I didn't. I still don't understand how it happened. Did I miss the health class where the boys were all taken aside and presented with the choice to start liking girls, or was it some biochemical brain thing that didn't happen to me? While my reaction towards women may have matured somewhat, the thought of sticking my tongue in ones mouth is still kinda icky.

that would only be the beginning. :scared:

Anytime we start holding a referendum -- or even seriously believe it's OK to have one -- on the human rights of a minority, everybody ought to be scared s**tless. Every single one of us belongs to a minority -- a special interest group, if you will -- of some kind or another. Brown hair, left-handed, Episcopalians, near-sighted - you name it - sooner or later every group could be ostracized and singled out for unfair treatment by the others.

My personal belief is that our country was constituted to eliminate just those barriers to the "pursuit of happiness" - but maybe I'm wrong.

And as much as the "Christian Right" likes to paint themselves as a majority they really aren't.


About 14 percent of the electorate in 2000 identified itself as part of the "Christian Right," with 79 percent of this sector voting for George W. Bush.<2> But contrary to the impression fostered by the direct-mail rhetoric of many liberal groups, not all Evangelicals are part of the Christian Right, and some Evangelicals are actually politically liberal or progressive. Black Evangelicals, for example, overwhelmingly vote Democratic, but they are conservative on some social issues: tending to favor a social safety net for the poor and unemployed, but believing homosexuals are sinful.

There are three ways to look at Christian Evangelicals: as people of faith that follow a set of specific doctrines; as an organic network of traditions; or as a self-identified coalition that emerged during World War Two.<3> These doctrines, according to historian David Bebbington, are the belief in the need to change lives through conversion; expressing the message of the gospels through activism; a strong regard for the Bible as a guide for life; and stressing the importance of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross.<4>

<snip>

In the broadest sense, according to Gallup polls, the number of persons in the United States who described themselves as either Evangelical or Born-Again between 1976 and 2001 fluctuated between 33 percent and 47 percent with a reasonable estimate being 35 percent of the population or just over 102 million people in 2003.<6> There seems to be a small long-term increase in the number of people reporting themselves in this category with 34 percent in election year 1976 and 45 percent in election year 2000. Using a different methodology and set of definitions, Barna Research has found that 41 percent of the population identifies as Born-Again using a broad definition, but only 8 percent accept all the tenets in a list of strict conservative doctrinal beliefs.<7>

<snip>

When all Evangelicals were polled regarding their Party and voting preferences, some of the results were surprising. Not surprising is that almost half of all Evangelicals are Republicans, while only one-quarter are Democrats. Yet, the single biggest bloc (among all Evangelicals) in 2000 was non-voters at 52 percent, followed by Bush voters at 37 percent and Gore voters at 11 percent. Even among Republican partisans (comprising 47 percent of all Evangelicals), while 77 percent voted for Bush, 33 percent chose not to vote; making non-voters the second biggest voting bloc in the Christian Right. Independent Evangelicals gave 19 percent and 18 percent of their votes to Bush and Gore respectively, but the biggest bloc for Evangelical Independents was also non-voters at 41 percent.<9> Many Evangelicals are "swing voters" oscillating between the Republican and Democratic Party; and many more simply feel neither Party represents their interests.
http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v17n2/evangelical-demographics.html



Everything they do is designed to keep secret the fact that they are a minority (albeit a very mean and loud one), to get as much power as possible, and to maintain what power they get. Despite what some have claimed (even here on DU), they will not be happy with anybody "throwing them a bone here and there to show them we respect their beliefs". They want complete and total power, and will not stop until they have achieved it. What we must do is fight them every step of the way to make sure they do not achieve their goal.

You're absolutely right, the religious right does want absolute total control of this country, and will settle for nothing less than a total theocracy where the Bible is translated literally and made into law in such a manner that masterbation would be a crime. In fact, aren't sex toys already illegal in two or three southern states? When will the invasion of our bedrooms stop?

The whole idea is completely idiotic- a constitutional convention is one of three ways to modify the constitution, yes, but you can do ANYTHING at a constitutional convention! If enough people wanted to, they could through out the entire constitution!

There are several ways to ammend the US Constitution. Two of them have- majority ratification and constitutional convention- have never been done. A constitution convention (hereout "CC") is a last-resort option, put into the constitution in case the country's government was seriously problematic. The CC is an insane process by which the entire consitution can be thrown out or rewritten as those in the convention see fit. As I see it, with the majority of states banning gay marriage, a CC of that sort would pass the measure easily. But it wouldn't stop there: without limits, the CC could put laws in place saying anything about the citizenship of GBLTs that they want- we could easily be made into non-citizens.

In short: Constitutional Convention= very very bad.

We'll pass more amendments than they will.

They want the ERA? Bring it on!