Mac wrote above:
[[ The only way this can be done on a national scale is through a constitutional amendment. It didn't get to first base in 2005. ]]
Stop rewriting history, Mac.
The reason there was no proposed Constitutional amendment to define marriage in 2005 was not because there wasn't support for it (there was).
The reason the amendment got nowhere is because THE REPUBLICANS KILLED IT.
They were so afraid to "tamper with the Constitution" that they decided to proffer something called "The Defense of Marriage Act", that would leave such nastiness to the states, and by doing so wash their hands of the issue. That passed easily.
A proposed amendment would have had a good chance of getting through the Congress at the time. And once it did, it would have been quickly ratified by the states.
Again, you're trying to rewrite and distort history, and the role Republicans played in this debacle.
By the way, I claim credit as being one of the first folks in America to call for a Constitutional amendment to define marriage. Here is the text of a post I put up back on June 30, 2003. Here is the complete text of a message I posted to TOS at the time. Read it carefully, including my predictions as to how the left could win on this issue:
===================================================
PhiKapMom wrote:
From this editorial we had better be prepared for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to be challenged in the courts and eventually ending up at the SCOTUS...
And end up there it will. Considering the current behavior of the Court, the outcome will be anybody's guess. _My_ guess is that there is a relatively strong -- not guaranteed, but "strong", nonetheless -- possibility that our side could lose.
With Vermont, and soon Massachusetts, we will have lost "two for two". I predict that if gay marriage comes before the New Jersey Supreme Court (one of the most liberal in the nation), that we will lose there as well. That will make it three for three.
Gay marriage is taking exactly the same "trek towards legitimization" that _abortion_ took before the Roe v. Wade decision. This is no mistake -- it is intentional and well-planned.
The routine works like this:
1. Gain a "foothold" for your argument by getting your cause "legitimized" in a few states (even though the majority of the remainder of those states still outlaw it).
2. Build a measure of public opinion supporting your issue (again, the majority of public opinion still against you notwithstanding).
3. Get your issue before the Supreme Court, and persuade them to "cross the line" between adjudicating and law-writing. This might be deemed the "penumbra of rights" tactic.
It worked with Roe. And -- particularly considering the Court's "Sodomy ruling" only a few days ago -- has a very good chance of working again with gay marriage. The "legal groundwork" is already there. All that is necessary is to coax the Justices to "reach" just a bit further in their reasoning.
For this reason, the outcome of a Supreme Court challenge to the Defense of Marriage act cannot be guaranteed. Presuming that our view of "traditional marriage" will survive a Supreme Court challenge carries great risk.
For that reason, it should not be allowed to happen. It _can_ be prevented, but we must act soon.
And the ONLY way to prevent such an eventual Supreme Court challenge, with its uncertain outcome, is to do an "end run" around the courts. Of course, this will require a United States Constitutional Amendment.
My proposed amendment to the United States Constitution:
============
"The United States, and the Several States, recognize that the legal and moral contract of marriage may be established only between one man and one woman. Neither the United States, nor the Several States, will sanction nor recognize any form of marriage other than that entered into by one man and one woman."
============
This is what it will take -- and can be the ONLY possible solution -- to stop the "gay marriage" movement in its tracks. Nothing else will work. Let me repeat that for you lunkheads: NOTHING ELSE WILL WORK. If you really want to "stop them", this is how you will have to do it.
From time to time, I have encountered individuals on this board who counter my thoughts with the supposition, "this isn't a matter for the Constitution" (or the courts). Your point is well taken, from a strictly intellectual viewpoint, but in the end you will lose if this is the only argumentative weapon you choose with which to do battle against the other side. THEY will use ALL weapons at their disposal in order to achieve their goal, and WILL NOT STOP FIGHTING until they have achieved that goal.
Like the obstructive Democrats of the Senate who are fillibustering the nomination of federal judges, they realize that our side may lack the "will" to take decisive and final action to stop their onslaught. In the case of the Senate, our side could quickly and easily end the fillibusters and force judicial nominations to the floor by use of the so-called "nuclear option" -- but they're _afraid_. Afraid of exactly _what_, only G-d knows.
And so it follows that we are "afraid" to press on -- and fight hard -- for the only "nuclear option" that will stop the gay marriage juggernaut. In our hearts, we know what must be done.
But will we do it?
