But the amendment can't get through the Senate because it would have to have a two-thirds majority. The Demos aren't going to let such a thing pass. They are as much in hock to gay activists as they are to pro-abortionist forces. I also doubt that the necessary three-quarters of the states would come on board either.
Sandra Miesel | 06.30.03 - 11:35 am | #

Cut Senator Frist some slack, Mark. He was slammed today by Andrew Sullivan--from the left on this issue--for the very same comments, and here you are slamming him from the right. The poor guy can't win. Why can't you imagine that he might actually mean what he says? Why the cynicism?
Larry | 06.30.03 - 11:52 am | #

Sandra -- don't be so sure. Quite a few Democrats, particularly from the south, may decide that supporting an amendment designed to protect traditional marriage is good politics, particularly heading into an election year.
Ed Graham | 06.30.03 - 11:58 am | #

I wonder if this amendment idea is going to start picking up speed over the next few months.

I hope you're right Ed. Another "law" imposed from the courts might start a groundswell even some demos can't ignore.
JCL | 06.30.03 - 12:04 pm | #

If he was serious he would be filing the papers needed to put the amendment before congress! Instead he is sending up trial baloons.

Another amen from the choir Mark.
Paul Scheibmeir | 06.30.03 - 12:06 pm | #

A bill for the amendment has already been introduced in the House. Where the government is concerned, I operate on the Murphy's Law principle that whatever can go wrong, will.
Sandra Miesel | 06.30.03 - 1:37 pm | #

The Federal Marriage Amendment won't be brought on the floor until the Massachusetts decision comes out. If Massachusetts does not come down in favor of same-sex marriage, I think it will remain on the back burner. If it does, then the Amendment will become a huge issue.

How the votes turn out for Democrats largely depends on the demographics of the district. I don't know how the numbers would play out, actually. Probably the FRC, HRC, and other players have counted the votes already to some extent.
Patrick Rothwell | Homepage | 06.30.03 - 2:20 pm | #

Sandra Miesel:
Getting 2/3rd of Congress and 3/4 of the states for a constitutional amendment isn't simply a head-counting operation either. All the opponents of such an amendment must do to block it (as Phyliss Shlafley's followers found out over the ERA) is prevent the one of the subcommittees on constitutional amendments in either the state House or Senate in 1/4 of the states from reporting the marriage amendment to a full committee. It is hard to see how any such amendment would pass in the New England, Mid-Atlantic, or Pacific-bounded states.
T. Marzen | 06.30.03 - 4:35 pm | #