babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » Writing Discrimination Into the Constitution

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Writing Discrimination Into the Constitution
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 19 May 2006 01:07 PM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is very disturbing:

quote:
Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage, and likely prohibit civil unions and other forms of domestic partnerships. S.J. Res 1 -- the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" -- passed the committee on a 10-8 party-line vote after Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA), who said he was "totally opposed" to the bill, voted for it. The vote took place in a room just off the Senate floor that was closed to the general public. Instead of acting on the issues that most Americans indicate they are concerned about -- Iraq, gas prices, and stem cells among them -- the Senate is moving ahead with a divisive bill that growing numbers of Americans oppose. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the committee's ranking member, said the measure is "part of an election-year political agenda" to satisfy the right wing. "The Constitution's too important to be used for such base partisan politics." The Constitution has been amended to eliminate slavery, to give women the right to vote, and to secure for every person the equal protection of the laws. It has never been amended to mandate discrimination.

GOING INTO THE CLOSET: Yesterday's proceedings were removed from the public committee hearing room, where most Judiciary Committee actions take place, to a room that is "not open to the public and does not even have enough chairs for every senator on the committee to sit." Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) expressed his dismay at Specter's decision to pass such a consequential piece of legislation behind closed doors and indicated his desire not to assist the committee in reaching a quorum. "I don't need to be lectured by you. You are no more a protector of the Constitution than am I," shouted Specter in response. "If you want to leave, good riddance." Feingold rose from his seat to leave and said to Specter, "I've enjoyed your lecture, too, Mr. Chairman. See ya." Feingold said in a statement afterwards, "Today's markup of the constitutional amendment concerning marriage, in a small room off the Senate floor with only a handful of people other than Senators and their staffs present, was an affront to the Constitution. ... I am deeply disappointed that the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee went forward with the markup over my objection."Now that the Judiciary Committee has passed the amendment, it will go before the full Senate "on June 5 for what is expected to be a heated debate." The bill is unlikely to succeed because it must first be passed by two-thirds of the Senate, then two-thirds of the House, and finally, three-fourths of the 50 states. Last time the Senate considered the amendment, it failed to win even a simple majority.


Center for American Progress


From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 19 May 2006 01:27 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
As the piece notes, this won't be adopted and is just Republican political bone throwing to its social conservative base.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 19 May 2006 01:28 PM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I hope so, and I would assume this wouldn't pass if the House went Dem instead of Rethug. But what if the Rethugs retain power?
From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 19 May 2006 01:30 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It takes 2/3 in both houses. A very tall order given that the Republicans have relatively slim majorities in each.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
cco
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8986

posted 19 May 2006 01:37 PM      Profile for cco     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And even if it passes by that margin, it needs to be ratified by the legislatures of 38/50 states before it becomes law.
From: Montréal | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 19 May 2006 02:08 PM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well that is great news then. I sometimes have no clear idea how things work in the US, so your opinions on this mean a lot Josh. Thanks.
From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca