GOP Planning July Vote on Gay Marriage Amendment Tue Jun 15 2004 16:32:49 ET

The Senate Republican leadership is aiming for a mid-July vote on a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage, forcing Democrats to take a stand on the controversial topic just before the party heads to Boston for its presidential nominating convention.

Mark Preston at ROLL CALL reports: Republican Conference Chairman Rick Santorum (Pa.) said the GOP leaders are not yet prepared to make an official announcement on a specific date, but confirmed that they are scouting for a July vote.

³We are sort of running the traps on this right now, and sort of seeing what kind of response we are getting,² Santorum said following Tuesdayıs Republican policy lunch. ³We are talking about it. I think there are a couple of meetings to be had yet before any official announcement is made.²

Developing...

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 15, 2004

Answers

bump

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 15, 2004.

the Constitution belongs to the citizens of the United States. how arrogant that the GOP (and its NOT ALL of them, just the ones catering to the religious wacko fringe)calls for a vote on an amendment. historically, it had taken YEARS to debate amendments. but they believe they can bring a vote to the floor by July???? are they mad with power? it would appear so.....

for anyone who agrees with this action, arent you just a little embarrassed to be supporting santorum?

i maintain that as a lifelong citizen of this miserable state (pennsylvania- and hopefully not much longer), santorum has done NOTHING within reason for the COMMON GOOD of his constituency. but then again, his constituency is the small number of religious wacko rightists which uses their voting power.

-- jas (jas_r_22@hotmail.com), June 16, 2004.

First of all, the vote in question only starts the legislative ball rolling...a constitutional amendment is the hardest thing to do in our system - it's like scoring a hole in one in golf. After the Senate vote it has to win in the House and then win 2/3rds of the State Legislatures before actually becoming new law of the land... in other words, only the overwhelming will of the people can pass a Constitutional Amendment.

But wait a second...this used to mean that in order for some fundamental change to occur, a cause needed to muster such overwhelming support. Not anymore! The Left has routinely been foisting major changes on American society and bypassing laws by winning court cases.

Look at Abortion. There was no ground swell of people in 1973 demanding abortion. Had they tried to get a constitutional amendment to create such a right it would have died. Yet they won 3 court cases and the rest is history.

Now we have an absolute minority claiming the right to re-define the institution of marriage - and COURTS granting them this new right. To stop it, to just maintain the status quo, the majority has to jump through all the hoops of a Constitutional Amendment!

So...to change something drastically - you need just 5 judges. To keep things the way they are you need 170 million votes! How fair is that!?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), June 16, 2004.

Jas,

The Amendment Process

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).< /o:p>

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.

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.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 16, 2004.