Quote:
I do support states doing this on their own, if they are allowed to do so

I'm unsure what you mean here.

The amendment, as written, has no effect other than preventing states from changing their constitutions to explicitly recognize gay marriage. They would still be allowed to pass laws recognizing gay marriage, but they would not be allowed to make that law part of their constitution. They would also be allowed to make laws denying gay marriage, and would be allowed to make that part of their constitutions.

Interestingly, I don't believe that any state has ever brought the notion of a constitutional amendment affirming gay marriage.

It also has a clause that says that the US Constitution cannot explicitly recognize gay marriage. If it wasn't clear that this is just for show, that should be your proof. An amendment that states what the Constitution cannot (as opposed to does not say is a complete noop. In order for the Constitution to say it, it would have to be amended, and if that were the case, then it's just as easy to repeal or modify the old amendment anyway. Basically, it's remarkably unlikely to get a two-thirds majority in favor of explicitly recognizing gay marriage, but fail to acheive the same two-thirds majority to repeal the clause denying it.

There is also a clause defining marriage for the federal government, which is the only part that makes any sense to me, even if I think it's both silly and disagreeable.

Anyway, in addition to being spurred by anti-gay sentiment, all it does is restrict states' rights, which I thought the Republicans were supposed to be in favor of. In particular, its supposed reason for existence is to prevent "activist judges" from allowing gay marriage, but I fail to see how a judge interpreting his state's marriage laws as allowing gay marriage has anything to do with denying states the right to have their constitution explicitly allow it.


Edited by wfaulk (07/06/2006 14:23)
_________________________
Bitt Faulk