annathepiper | And yet, at the same time...

I heard this morning about talk going on in the government about how to suspend the election in case of terrorist attack this year. Way to make me ever so much more confident about November.

solarbird is a lot better about addressing these issues than I am... but still, despite me trying to bolster my spirits by playing a lot of GBS music this afternoon, I can't help but wonder if Bush is going to get into office again this fall, if he is going to somehow manage to succeed at ramming the FMA down the throats of the states, and if Dara and I are going to have to bloody well move to Canada. I really hope it doesn't come to that. I don't want to move to another country. But I will if it comes to that; I don't want to live under a government actively working to discriminate against me.

I'm going to use both of the URLs in Dara's post because it's necessary. I urge anyone reading this to please do the same.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

talyrath.livejournal.com

The FMA will never pass, don't fear. Only 50% of the Senate supports it (they need 66%), and there's no way that 2/3 of the states would ratify it.

Given that the social attitudes towards gays are tending to being more accepting rather than less as time passes, I think this is going to be something that dies on the vine.

From:

solarbird

You're high if you think 2/3 of the states wouldn't pass it. They'd pass it in a fucking heartbeat. More than 2/3 of the states have baby-DOMAs (passed pre-emptively after the federal DOMA was passed before) and some of the few that don't are considering them now that Massachusetts is allowing same-gender marriage. And the theocons (theological conservatives) are very forthright about using the results of this vote to target people who are soft on fags. Particularly in their own party. This is part of the fundamentalist takeover of the Republicans, and it will get worse before it gets better. Particularly if Bush wins re-election, and the Republicans hold (or gain) in Congress.

See my post about how this makes us feel, though. It's not just the changes in the law. (And it's not even just about marriage. This thing also eliminates domestic partnerships. And it's not even just about that. The tenticles of this thing go much deeper into the law - and the people pushing it know it, too.)

From:

avram

Um, it takes more than two-thirds of the states to amend the Constitution. There's two ways it can happen:

Method 1:

An amendment is proposed in Congress. If two-thirds of both houses pass it, it goes on to the states, where three-quarters of the state legislatures have to pass it.

So if they can't scrape up 67 US Senators to approve the FMA, that's it, it's dead, unless...

Method 2:

Two-thirds of the states can call a Constitutional Convention, and propose one or more amendments. Each amendment still needs to be approved by three-quarters of the states.

This is serious mojo. Method 2 has never been used, and most people are scared of it.

From:

annathepiper

From the information posted on the two URLs that Dara has quoted, the members of Congress are hearing from their constituents 10 to 1 in FAVOR of the FMA.

And I'm not going to be sanguine about this until I hear people telling me that they have, in fact, contacted their Senators and Congresspeople and urged them to vote against this thing. If you've done this, Tal, then good on ya.