Federal same sex marriage amendment - different constitutional agenda?

[DS9Voy]

Something occurred to me earlier today after I read the news that bush was calling for the same sex marriage amendment again today.

Frankly, it didn't make any sense to me. If this was October of 2006 I would expect them to play that card. But it's not. There's no election for sometime. So why play that hand now?

It also occurred to me that even with the change in the senate there is no way in hell such an amendment would pass.

Then it occurred to me that a sufficient number of states to pass such an amendment have already passed a state version... which also makes up sufficient numbers of states to call for a constitutional convention.

I have to wonder - is it possible they are preparing the fundamentalist base to push the states for a constitutional convention?

A constitutional convention has the authority to rewrite *any* part of the constitution. It's made up entirely of delegates the states send to that convention, and essentially they can do whatever they want. It could be anything from removing presidential term limits to repealing the first amendment.

They've been hinting they want to change sections of the constitution such as presidential term limits (or nullify them all together. see the patriot act). Clearly the federal congress isn't going to allow it, thus a constitutional convention would be the only means they have.

No one would support calling a constitutional convention to take a look at the bill of rights, but if they called it and claimed they only wanted to "protect marriage" a sufficient number of states may go for it getting them a constitutional convention. I have to wonder if this is a goal. Otherwise I don't see what all the talk of amending the constitution is getting them at this point in time.

[NMMNG]

1. With * and his regime it wouldn't surprise me

The FMA and the recent talk of repealing the 22nd--I wouldn't be surprised at all. Scared, but not surprised. :scared:

[shraby]

2. Have 37 states passed such an amendments

yet? It takes 3/4 of the states and 2/3 of both houses first.

[DS9Voy]

3. I believe so

which is why I'm thinking it would give them enough for a convention.

Also a convention does not involve the national congress at all. It *only* requires the states call it which is why this may be possible...

From the constitution

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof"

[Solon]

5. I think only 35 have such laws...

Also, you need 38 states to institute this convention, maybe we have enough breathing room to avoid this catastrophe.

ON EDIT: you are correct, it is 37 states with DOMAs, though not many have actual constitutional amendments.

[DS9Voy]

6. Although they may not all have amended the state constitutions

sufficient numbers of states to call for a convention (if you go by the domas) have passed such laws, and thus may go for the idea of amending the federal constitution. Logically if a state passed a doma, it would make sense that it would go along with the idea of a convention to do the same thing they already passed especially if the fundamentalist base starts pushing them for a convention with the top levels of the republican party telling them they need to amend the constitution.

There has been an organized movement to involve as many states as possible. Now they are talking of different amendments to the federal constitution when the next election is almost two years away, and bush is motivating the fundamentalist base with the idea now. Something is odd about that.

[eallen]

7. Actually, it takes only 34 states, two-thirds, to call the convention.

But 38, or three-quarters, to ratify the results.

[Solon]

4. Interesting angle, and welcome to DU...

Love to see more Trekkies on the site! I do think pretty much the same thing, the timing is wrong, even with his poll numbers so low, it doesn't make sense to pull this out before mid-terms. Even more disturbing is this, they will probably try stealth amendments in that case, think of a Gay Marriage Amendment that also wipes out the 4th or 5th amendments for "enforcement purposes" or other such things. Certainly possible, and scary at the same time.

[DS9Voy]

8. It would not at all surprise me

the scary thing is whatever the delegates wanted to do would the supreme law of the land instantly.