It has been more than a decade since the Federal Marriage Amendment was first propose back in 2002, and it has never passed. The last time it was brought up for a vote in 2007, it failed. But, as the anti-marriage equality groups out there stare oblivion in the face with a potential US Supreme Court ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act and Prop 8 out of California, that is all they are left with.
Literally, all they are left with is a Don Quixote run at a windmill.
In order for a Constitutional Amendment to pass, it first needs two-thirds of the votes in the House and Senate and then three-fourths of the states to ratify it. The Democrats hold the Senate, and look to be holding it for the foreseeable future. The Republicans do not hold two-thirds of the House, and that is unlikely to change in the future.
Then there’s the problem with the states. Currently, one-fourth of the states have same-sex marriage. Several more have civil unions, or are working on legislation to overturn their bans on same-sex marriage. They would need thirty-eight states to go along with it, so the twelve current states to have same-sex marriage and in California and Nevada, and it seems that they are two states short, and that is if they can get Colorado to vote for the amendment.
Barring a complete sea change in the United States, a Federal Marriage Amendment is unlikely to occur.
Peter Sprigg of the hate group Family Research Council stated “There’s a sense of anticipation. It’s likely the decisions will determine the landscape for where we go from here, so I certainly don’t believe that the debate is going to be over, but the terms of the debate and sort of the lay of the field, will probably be very different at the end.”
It seems that there were people making the same proclamations about segregation when the tide completely turned against that.
According to Maggie Gallagher, one of the leading faces of the anti-LGBT movement, meetings are being planned for after the ruling in order to plot strategy. Perhaps the next step will be to build a giant death ray in order to go after the people they don’t like.
The National Organization for Marriage has shoved thens of millions of dollars into votes on state constitutional amdments banning same-sex marriage. In 2012, they spent heavily in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington only to have their efforts go down in serious flames. NOM chairman John Eastman stated that “every possible scenario and outcome and gambit are being considered because this fight is critically important. If the Supreme Court … manufactures a right to same-sex marriage out of the Constitution, then the remedy would be a constitutional amendment.”
Eastman also said “I don’t think it’s going to be necessary because I don’t think the Supreme Court’s foolish enough to go there. They recognize what harm they’ve caused to our body politic when they did something similar to that in 1973 (Roe v Wade) and that issue still infects our politics. You can’t run for dogcatcher in this country without that issue being part of the campaign.”
That may end up being nothing more than a comforting lie they keep telling each other. In fact, they are looking to the anti-abortion groups to try and fight back against same-sex marriage.
Ryan Anderson of the Heritage Foundation said “They’ve (anti-abortion advocates) engaged in a multi-pronged campaign. Part of it has been legal and political, part of it has been cultural.” He talked about the incremental strategies like abortion waiting periods and laws about transporting minors across state lines and so on were aimed at “trying to overturn the overarching holding of Roe.”
He went on to say “I think for the marriage movement it won’t be as strenuous of a climb provided they don’t hand down a decision that looks like Roe. I think over time — even if there is a bad decision in California — that could also be overturned in the light of new evidence, in the light of new findings as to what the impacts of redefining marriage are on marriage rates and on parenting, and outcomes for children. … There would be reasons to reform marriage laws.”
Apparently no one mentioned to Anderson that abortion is provided by the private sector while marriage licenses are provided by the public sector. In other words, trying to restrict same-sex marriage is going to be nearly impossible. In fact, attempts to do that in various states have resulted in people losing their jobs.
Sprigg, though, has noted that the framing of the debate is one thing they plan to look at. He said “One of the points of frustration for me has been that the supporters of same-sex marriage want to portray the opponents of it as motivated entirely by hostility towards gay and lesbian people as individuals and that’s completely untrue. We are concerned about preserving the institution of marriage and making sure it continues to perform the important social functions that it has always performed.”
Which is why Sprigg, Gallagher and the rest have relied heavily upon lies, distortions, and deception in order to get their agendas through. In fact, they have never once backed banning divorce in any state, even when that has been offered up as a possible route to preserving marriage. They have relied upon comparisons of homosexuality to bestiality, pedophilia and incest in order to attack same-sex marriage even though none of those are true.
Anti-gay groups are hoping that, if the Courts do not overrule all bans on same-sex marriage, they can continue to attack it at the ballot box. Currently, 38 states ban same-sex marriage through law or amendment. Seven ban it by statute while the remainder by amendment. California’s is likely to go down in under ruling by the US Supreme Court. Nevada, Arizona, Michigan and Florida are debating overturning theirs.
For all Maggie Gallagher may say “I don’t think that the Supreme Court can settle a question as deep as what is marriage. The future will be written. I don’t think anything is inevitable,” it should be noted that the American people support same-sex marriage now, and the ballot box is becoming a difficult place to fight this as various religions and religious groups find themselves chastised for pursuing this over social relief efforts.