This is topic Interesting differences in the anti-gay marriage ammendments that are out there in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=021961

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Kat got me reading The Atlantic. There is an interesting article about the difference in language in the proposed ammendments in there. It appears that the more moderate of the two (if you could call either moderate) isn't the one that we will be stuck with if we get stuck with one.

Daniels bill is written to allow civil unions to stand in states that already allow them.

Here's the article:
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/03/foer.htm
Some quotes
quote:
Daniels's savvy was also evident in his launching of the FMA. He had made the case for his amendment to leading social conservatives, but he hadn't tried to enlist them as his main allies, because of their polarizing language and stance. ("The traditional social-conservative movement harkens back to an era of white Protestant cultural hegemony," he told me.) And because he knew that gay-rights activists would cast marriage as a civil right and evoke the African-American struggle, he had devised a strategy to pre-empt this line of argument: he chose African-Americans, including the Boston minister Ray Hammond and the civil-rights veteran Walter Fauntroy, to be his spokesmen.

But for all the obvious political virtues of the Daniels approach, it has one major flaw: conservative activists hate it. Many of them—including Daniels's comrades from his Massachusetts Family Institute days—have called him to express their ire. One told Daniels that his coalition resembled the bar scene in Star Wars. (Daniels replied, "When the right-wingers get together, that's the bar scene in Star Wars. Those are the alien forms.") Members of the Family Research Council and other groups on the religious right have chastised congressional sponsors of the FMA. Because of these groups' belief that homosexuality is a sin, they are unwilling to make any accommodations—and they are angry at Daniels for trying to do so. They are preparing for a showdown, which will take place in the coming months. The leaders of nearly every major conservative activist group—James Dobson, the Reverend Jerry Falwell, and the former drug czar William J. Bennett among them—have banded together to create an anti-gay-marriage front: the Arlington Group. They have written their own constitutional amendment, which would ban both gay marriage and civil unions. Given this group's political heft, congressional backers of the FMA may shift their support.

I also didn't realize that federally there was already a law:
quote:
In 1999 Daniels moved to Washington to found the Alliance for Marriage. The group enlisted conservative legal scholars to write the Federal Marriage Amendment. When Daniels presented the document, in 2001, it struck many conservatives as a waste of time. They thought they had already won the battle: in 1996 President Bill Clinton had signed the Defense of Marriage Act, forbidding federal recognition of same-sex unions; thirty-seven state legislatures had issued their own bans.

AJ

[ March 02, 2004, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
 
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Has the 1996 DMA stood a Supreme Court test?
 
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
I don't know. In fact the more I read of this article, the more I realized how little I know about the actual legalese that has and is being circulated.

AJ
 
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
The 1996 DoMA has never been challenged. Largely because there haven't been any same-sex civil marriages yet.

-Bok
 


Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2