GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

What’s Anti-Anti-Gay Amendment Fundraising Up To?

by

It would be great to start this post with a dramatic number, like $50,000,000 or whatnot. Far be it from me, of course I’d not be the first to make an internet post without having the facts straight. Fact is, however, I don’t know how much has been raised by the myriad anti-MPA organizations popping up all over the country these days.

What I do know, though, is that this amendment has about as good a chance of passing as I do scoring Tom Cruise Brad Pitt. The kerfuffle over this whole thing has done more to demonstrate the lack of understanding of Article V of the Constitution than it has to demonstrate who’s evil and who wants to take our “rights” away.

Those hyperventilating over the threat of an amendment to the Constitution defining marriage (as recognized by the government) as between one man and one woman either think the gay community is a bottomless pit of cash or stupid. From what I’ve seen, I’m not sure they’re wrong either way. Let’s run some numbers (those I do know), shall we?

Two-thirds of the Senate is 67 votes. The last time the Senate took up this issue, the eeevil Republicans running the show couldn’t even muster 60 for cloture. Hell, they didn’t even get a simple majority, the vote was 48 yea, 50 nay (The paragons of gay rights, Kerry and Edwards, were busy campaigning…at least Clinton ran home to execute a retarded guy during his election.) Point is: The Senate ain’t gonna pass this thing, no matter how much the 30%-approval-rating-so-I’ve-got-tons-of-political-weight-to-throw-around W hounds them to do so.

Okay then, step 2: The House. Two-thirds (plus 1) of 435 is 290. How often does the House pass legislation with that sort of lop-sided majority? Actually, more often than I thought. The House passes stuff with high margins like that all the time. Some examples are: “Recognizing the Historical Significance of Juneteenth Independence Day, and Expressing the Sense of Congress That History Should Be Regarded As a Means for Understanding the Past and Solving the Challenges of the Future” and “Expressing the Condolences and Deepest Sympathies of the Congress in the Aftermath of the Recent School Shooting at Red Lake High School in Red Lake, Minnesota“. Now, in all fairness, all high-margin votes aren’t as trivial as these, but c’mon, gang…these folks can hardly pass a budget. You think they’re going to change the Constitution? Please.

So if we’re living in the world where these two things happen, it’s on to the states, where a three-quarter affirmation (that’s 38 states) is needed. That means 13 can scuttle the effort. Shall we? Okay, California, New York, Vermont (of course), Massachusetts, Maryland, and Hawaii. Never happen here. That leaves 7 more to find: How about Maine, Oregon, Washington, Connecticut, New Jersey, Michigan and Delaware. This doesn’t even include blue stelwarts such as Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, and three other Kerry-Edwards states. If you’ve made it this far and think there’s actually a danger this’d pass, shouldn’t you be at a Michael Moore opening?

Now, I’m totally against this Amendment, and both my Senators are aware of that. I encourage all who read this to contact their representation and voice opposition.

I am curious, though…with the odds so stacked against this effort, why do we need so much money to oppose it? Kind of makes you wonder what they’re going to do with your donations after this effort dies. At least it should make you wonder.

Comments

  1. It makes me wonder why it’s an issue at all. Along with flag burning.

    Isn’t there anything else going on right now which might require a little more attention?

    Could it be that the right is obsessed with fags and flags?

    Or is it a smokescreen?

  2. Good point, hank.
    Both sides, I feel, are being incredibly cynical and avoiding a useful discussion, as Dan has mentioned.
    What troubles me is that on the one hand, it’s totally clear W and other Republicans are playing politics…but on the other hand how oblivious the gay “community” is that they’re being used by the Left here. Troubling, but alas, not surprising…

  3. Because the left is playing politics as well. Forget “black and white”. There isn’t even “grey” anymore. It’s one big bland party;(

  4. But you guys know what the issue is here — the people and their elected representatives have spoken repeatedly and loudly on the issue.

    And have rejected marriage as anything other than one man and one woman whenever offered the chance.

    On the other hand, a small minority of a small minority have taken to the courts to do an end run around thae democratic process. You have, to your credit, decried that process time and again.

    That unfortunately leaves those opposed to the redefinition of marriage by an out-of-control judiciary with only two options — amend the Constitution or surrender despite being an overwhelming majority.

  6. I am curious, though…with the odds so stacked against this effort, why do we need so much money to oppose it? Kind of makes you wonder what they’re going to do with your donations after this effort dies. At least it should make you wonder.

    The GOP and other anti-gay groups are using the Ammendment as a poltical and fundraising tool. What do you think they will be doing with the money that they are raising? Donate it to the local AIDS hospice? I suspect not. And are you wondering about that? Perhaps you should consider holding the same standards to the anti-gay forces as you do to the “anti-anti-gay” groups.

  7. But you guys know what the issue is here — the people and their elected representatives have spoken repeatedly and loudly on the issue.

    And have rejected marriage as anything other than one man and one woman whenever offered the chance.

    On the other hand, a small minority of a small minority have taken to the courts to do an end run around thae democratic process. You have, to your credit, decried that process time and again.

    That unfortunately leaves those opposed to the redefinition of marriage by an out-of-control judiciary with only two options — amend the Constitution or surrender despite being an overwhelming majority.

    “Redefinition of marriage”, “out-of-control judiciary”,

    Really, don’t you guys ever bother coming up with your own point of view instead of continually repeating GOP press release sound-bite jargon? Are you GOP-bots? This probably isn’t a real person at all, but a GOP viral worm program.

    Those that complain about “legal activists”, rarely mention the same complaints when its their own side that is doing the suing. When a judge takes away the children of a lesbian or gay person you don’t hear anybody on the Right complaining about “judicial activism”. And there are far more and better financed legal groups filing court cases for the Right than on the Left.

    And just because a “small minority” is a “small minority” it does not follow that they are legally or morally wrong. Regardless of whether a majority of Americans agree with them or not. A majority of Americans once thought slavery, or even just segregation, was cool. That did not make it “right”.

  8. I’m a democrat and (surprise!) I’ve studied civics and know hwo the constitution works and how many votes it takes to get ammendments passed in the both houses. All news reports today indicate that for the moment, it doesn’t have a chance of passing. What’s disturbing is the amount of fervor that the president of the US is pushing this ammendment (no matter how un-passable it might be at the moment).

    I fully agree that the way to get people to turn the tide against support of this legislation is not to sit around and say “I hate Bush”. The point is to get people to understand that writing discrimination into the constitution and using the constitution to take rights away from certian individuals is wrong. Also, it’s important to point out that laws in the past like this have been struck down showing they are bad (prohibition of alcohol being the most glaring example). As much as people who support this site are absolutely loathe to admit it, history shows that people of liberal backgrounds (not necessarily political affiliations) have been the ones who have been successful at this strategy. as politics in the country have shown in the last several years, rather than reach compromise to live together peacefully, it’s turned into “screw you, we’re in control”.

    My question (when Bush others blather on about the need for protecting marriage and families) is why aren’t they doing other things to “protect” marriage? Why haven’t our conservative leaders turned back liberal divorce laws? Why isn’t pre-marriage screening conducted nationally to prevent the high divorce rate (what is it now, over 50% of marriages end in divorce in the first 5 years?) Is it true that all leaders who support measures like this and talk about family values have never been divorced, have never been in a extramarital affair?

    Sorry, but history has proven too many times that when people say “oh that can’t happen here”, they generally aren’t paying attention enough to make sure that it really doesn’t happen. If we want to keep our freedom, we need to keep paying attention and not keep looking at our cell phones and iPods. Perhaps if more people would vote in local, state and federal elections than vote for the newest American Idol, we would be in a little better shape.

  10. #11: Gee, I don’t see too many Dems on that list. And I’d be willing to bet that many of gay conservatives who post and comment here have given their votes and money to some of these fine Republican Senators.

  12. #10-
    Efforts to turn back liberal divorce laws have been extensively tried in the past, and have been singularly unsuccessful. No state has successfully made its divorce laws more conservative, with the partial exception of covenant marriage (3 states) because it is voluntary. It is thought that perhaps state legislatures fear “divorce migration”; couples moving out of their state to ones with more liberal divorce laws. Back when most states had fault-only divorce, states such as Nevada made a lot of money in being known as “divorce mills.” But whatever the reason, serious efforts at reforming divorce laws have been all but given up on for quite a while, and CM had not received much conservative support at all.

    As for your suggestion of premarital screening. There have been pilot programs in a few communities offering compensation for couples deciding to get premartial counseling, and about 10% of couples decide not to get married afterwards. But as far as a national “screening”, as in, determining who should get married and who should not? I believe that would conflict with established policy to encourage marriage, as well as running into many practical problems.

    As a final note on the comment, 50% was the peak, but it has declined a bit since then.

  13. “That unfortunately leaves those opposed to the redefinition of marriage by an out-of-control judiciary with only two options — amend the Constitution or surrender despite being an overwhelming majority. ”

    I am just quoting this piece, but the whole comment was crap. “Redefinition of marriage”? Anything that doesn’t involve a dowry and isn’t arranged by the parents is not a traditional marriage. Any union of persons not of the same social class is not a traditonal marriage or any kind of marriage at all – that is why the offspring are “bastards” rather than “children”. For that matter, some would say that a union not solemnified in a church – by this I mean a real church, with a real priest ordained by a real bishop in the real Apostolic Succession, – is not a marriage. So give up that dishonest crap about “redefintion of marriage”. You are about 200 years too late.

    “Rhymes with Right” What – Shite?

    And for the record before the shouting begins – no, there is nothing wrong with a mechanic marrying Paris Hilton, with people getting married by soem preacher in a chapel, or with people just living together for seven years and calling it marriage. I just would like to see some honeety in the use of terminology.

    One of those terms would be “conservative”. Since when did conservatives think that a person’s rights were subject to a vote of the rabble?

  14. This is one issue you can’t turn into a “the libs aren’t doing enough for me” issue. Want anti-gay legislation in the constitution? Think Conservative.

  15. Wrong answer guys.

    Conservatives – those worthy of the name – oppose the FMA/MPA. The criticism of Bush over this issue, visible on this blog as well as a great many “heterosexual” (or asexual) conservative blogs, is precisely because of that.

  16. For most gays, it’s all a non-issue. We got more important things to get “right”. We don’t want gay marriage anymore than we want a federal marriage amendment to “protect” the institution of marriage.

    We want civil unions; we want same-sex, multiple partner relationships legitimized; we want special tax credits for guys who have 6 pac abs and we want fat or old gay men penalized for polluting the gay landscape… bears or not. We’ve tolerated them for too long –covering them in bad flannel shirts just doesn’t work in the long run.

    It’s time to cull out those in our community who don’t meet the new conventional standard. Support or opposing FMA isn’t part of that standard. 6 pacs, tans and perfect teeth –now you’re talking.

    Any 1-L student knows that already.

  17. I want gay marriage – but I want it “done right” (i.e. democratically) – and civil unions are very much worth settling for, in the meantime, I agree.