Publius On Crack
If we’ve learned anything over the past six years, it’s that we should never assume an idea is “too crazy” for the wingnuts. Case in point, the anti-gay forces who were recently denied in their attempt to tack a homophobic amendment into our constitution have a new plan that’s completely f’n nuts. (via ThinkProgress)
Meeting after the big failure at the offices of the social-conservative Family Research Council, the top leaders of the marriage movement — Catholic, Protestant and Mormon leaders among others — discussed the possibility of an unprecedented Constitutional Convention. Two-thirds (34) of the state legislatures would have to call for such a convention — which could be done only with great difficulty. Even then, no one knows what such a convention would look like or what sort of amendments could result from it. Article 5 of the Constitution is quite vague on the subject.Looking past that, if such a convention were to pass a marriage amendment, we estimate that 28 states would easily ratify it. Another eight states may do so only after a protracted and bloody political fight (which could span an election cycle). That leaves supporters with two more states to go to reach the threshold of 38 (three-fourths), and only the most difficult ground to fight on — states such as Maine, Rhode Island, Oregon and Nevada are probably not ideal places to win such a fight, although not all would be unwinnable.
On the other hand, we estimate that there are more than 13 states with legislatures willing to block anything too far out on the left that could emerge from the convention. That’s why some conservative leaders are willing to countenance such a risk.
So America has gone from openly persecuting homosexuals (and looking the other way at teen suicides, gay bashing, etc.) to the passing of laws to “defend” marriage to the conservative control of all three branches of government to the passing of anti-gay constitutional amendments (and the repeated failure of a federal amendment). And now we’re at the point where homophobes want to just rewrite the constitution from scratch. You know what’s next, don’t you? I’m guessing a bloody military coup, but what a few dead bodies when we’re talking about protecting a sacred union?
Here’s what our first constitutional convention looked like :
And here’s what our second one will look like.
I love being married. Nothing on Earth can compare to the sheer joy of finding the person you want to spend the rest of your life with. Loving someone so much that you become family makes me so happy that I want everyone to have the opportunity to be as fortunate as I am. Trying to prevent people from sharing your happiness is something that doesn’t make any sense to me, so I guess that means I just don’t understand moral values or something…
11 comments »
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Well put, Greg. I have YET to see a family that fell apart because some other couple got married. And I fail to see how marriage in this country is “defended” by limiting it to people with Tab A and Slot B.
Comment by dAnimal — June 16, 2006 @ 2:34 pm
This is the way people with tiny little minds act. Things outside their experience are frightening so the best way to stay safe is to stop things outside from happening. Make the world conform to this particular list of expectations and this particular list of results is guaranteed. In this case idealized family groups based on fifties television (like Leave It to Beaver) make their well adjusted little trecks to a heaven filled with cotton candy and harps…. Want to change the world, get enough stupid bigotted people together in a room and makae sure they’re afraid….
Comment by Kamachanda — June 16, 2006 @ 3:02 pm
It would make a lot more sense if they all got together and tried to figure out a way to ban DIVORCE. That’s what really destroys traditional marriage.
Of course, they won’t because divorce is something THEY may need to take advantage of someday…
Comment by jim marquis — June 16, 2006 @ 5:25 pm
THIS is exactly why there’s a separation of Church and State. (Not GOD and State- CHURCH and State)Governments are inheirently immoral, as they deal in death and theft. ALL this moralizing is the sincerest waste of the TAXPAYERS TIME AND MONEY. Best if Congress gets back to the business it is most adept at, killing and stealing.
Comment by Mike Meyer — June 16, 2006 @ 5:49 pm
If you think this dog and pony act even minutely slowed down the killing and stealing, you are fooling yourself.
Comment by Kamachanda — June 16, 2006 @ 7:19 pm
No, I just like to see them more focused on the job at hand. Much like any employer worth his salt, I can’t stand to see the help take a break.
Comment by Mike Meyer — June 16, 2006 @ 7:25 pm
Here are a few constitution amendments the values voter would embrace:
1)Ban on divorce
2)Ban on women owning property
3) Requirement that women stay barefoot and pregnant
4) Legalizing child abuse
5) Vouchers
6) Flag burning
7) Ten Commandments on all public property
8) Abolish all firearms restrictions
9) Ban on abortions, contraception, sterilization for women only
10) White men get 2 votes
11) Republicans pay no taxes
12) Indentured servitude reinstated in special circumstances, like for illegal immigrants
13) OSHA, labor unions, child labor, laws, EPA abolished
I guess I made my point.
Comment by Becky — June 16, 2006 @ 7:57 pm
i think this is once again, a part of their “push far right ideas into mainstream” tactic
Comment by almostinfamous — June 16, 2006 @ 8:39 pm
All this harrumphing is nice, but the only ones seeing it are people who share our opinions.
We should all become loud-mouth, anoying assholes, like me, and interject these ideas in conversation as much as possible. PC is always bad because it stifles thought. Starting an argument? That’s what changes public opinion!
Comment by patrick — June 17, 2006 @ 6:30 am
Some readers may not understand- if a constitutional convention is called, the ENTIRE constitution is suspended. There are NO LIMITS on what comes out the other end of this process.
The ‘original intent’ of the writers of the constitution was obviously to allow for a radical change of government, at least as radical as the change from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution.
Considering how out-of-control the military-police-government axis has become, it might not only be rightwingers who would be willing to call for such a convention.
Interesting times.
Comment by serial catowner — June 18, 2006 @ 3:07 pm
Some rather lovely flamboyant mixes of colour to put across their messages of hatred and ignorant fear there. I’ve long maintained that to make a really manly point you gotta use kiwi.
Comment by simonpoulsen — June 18, 2006 @ 9:46 pm