FMA = dead

[The Duke]

if they couldn't even get 50 to vote on letting debate continue, they aren't going to get 67 to approve it.

Can't 2/3 of the states propose an amendment, and 3/4 of the states ratify it, without even involving the Federal government?

Whether they get 67 votes in the Senate is irrelevant, if 34 states chose to propose, and 38 states voted to ratify.  The real reason why the FMA is dead (13 of them, actually):

1. California
2. Massachusetts
3. New York
4. Rhode Island
5. New Jersey
6. Vermont
7. Hawaii
8. Oregon
9. Washington
10. Nevada
11. Illinois
12. Connecticut
13. (Minnesota/Wisconsin/Iowa/Michigan/Pennsylvania/Maryland)

No way the FMA is ratified by any of the first 12, and no way it's ratified by all of #13.

California, Hawai'i, and Massachussetts (when they put it to the democratic process anyway) all voted voerwhelmingly against gay marriage.  In California we had a referendum, and 2/3s of the state voted to ban gay marriage.

[Josh/Devilman88]

Blue are states that will vote yes, Red - no and gray it will be close...

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Blue are states that will vote yes, Red - no and gray it will be close...

DC is not a state, so their vote is irrelevant.

I would make Oregon red.  Oregon has the lowest church attendence in the US.  The Republicans in Oregan are mostly of the libertarian variety.  For similar reasons, Washington should also be red.  Nevada as well.  I wouldn't call them a state dominated by religious moralists.

Maryland and Delaware should be "hot pink."

California is interesting.  If they put it to popular vote, it will depend largely on Latino turnout.  I still have a feeling the "writing bigotry into the Constitution" rhetoric will ring the strongest among voters.

Ohio should be gray.

Overall, I think there's a zero chance of ratification.

[cwelsch]

Less than half the country wants a constitutional amendment, even though more than half is against gay marriage.  You won't turn less than 50% into getting it by 34 state legislatures.


Although I wouldn't put anything past California.  It's a very weird, unpredictable state.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

why does everyone think Maryland would be close? Legislature is solidly pure Dem and liberal. Just look at their congressional delegation.

The popular vote doesn't matter, it'd be voted on by the legislatures. And the California legislature wouldn't pass it, not after passing a resolution condeming the Boy Scouts (which was the right thing to do)

I'd also put New Mexico in at least gray, solidly Dem and fairly liberal legislature.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

why does everyone think Maryland would be close? Legislature is solidly pure Dem and liberal. Just look at their congressional delegation.

Speaking as a former Marylander: Of Maryland Democrats, about 50% are Black Christians, and another 10% are Black Muslims.  A lot of these people can be quite conservative socially.

There is a growing sentiment among the Black community of resentment towards people comparing the fight for racial equality to the fight for "sexual orientation" equality.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Aren't there some states that put it to a popular vote?  I think a state has the power to do that.  In WI, amendments to the state constitution are done this way - it seems likely to me that US amendments would also be done by PV.  And California tends to put everything to popular vote (I predict that their state legislature will be obsolete by 2010).

Since it's been so long since we've had an amendment making the rounds (I'm too young to remember ERA) I'm not sure which states do it in the legislature, and which ones do it by popular vote, if any.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

after passing a resolution condeming the Boy Scouts (which was the right thing to do)

Why?  Don't the Boy Scouts have a right to have a code of conduct?  If they had a rule that said that people who swear can't be Boy Scouts, should California also also condemn that?

If you don't like the rules, don't join the club.  Or found your own club.

[WMS]

I'd also put New Mexico in at least gray, solidly Dem and fairly liberal legislature.

Well, I dug up the poll results I posted on that (way back in March), and it's looking pretty much like josh is right about NM...

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=788;start=90

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

why does everyone think Maryland would be close? Legislature is solidly pure Dem and liberal. Just look at their congressional delegation.

Speaking as a former Marylander: Of Maryland Democrats, about 50% are Black Christians, and another 10% are Black Muslims.  A lot of these people can be quite conservative socially.

There is a growing sentiment among the Black community of resentment towards people comparing the fight for racial equality to the fight for "sexual orientation" equality.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Aren't there some states that put it to a popular vote?  I think a state has the power to do that.  In WI, amendments to the state constitution are done this way - it seems likely to me that US amendments would also be done by PV.  And California tends to put everything to popular vote (I predict that their state legislature will be obsolete by 2010).

Since it's been so long since we've had an amendment making the rounds (I'm too young to remember ERA) I'm not sure which states do it in the legislature, and which ones do it by popular vote, if any.

there are some states that put amendments to the STATE constitution to a popular vote but I think the Constitution says amendments can be passed by only the legislature. And the current California legislature won't pass this.

In the case of Maryland, while black Democrats are often somewhat conservative, black legislators are not. Cynthia McKinney, Barbara Lee, Jesse Jackson Jr, Bobby Rush, ect. ect. I don't see any Democrats in Maryland's congressional delegation voting for this, including the two blacks, so I really can't see it passing the legislature. And because of gerrymandering, few would have to worry about reelection.

WMS, according to that poll a majority of New Mexicans would oppose such an amendment, and so far a plurality of legislators do. It's close though, so I'd put it in gray.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

for the record, even if California did put it to a popular vote, I'd be on it failing. Opposing gay marriage is your own state does not automatically translate into supporting the amendment, as many of the nay Republicans here can probably attest. Since polls show it's basically split nationwide on this, California being more liberal on a whole than the nation would be against it.

[WMS]

WMS, according to that poll a majority of New Mexicans would oppose such an amendment, and so far a plurality of legislators do. It's close though, so I'd put it in gray.

Ah, true. Like most people, New Mexicans both oppose gay marriage and a Constitutional Amendment to ban it. A state amendment to ban it would certainly pass, however, although you might be able to squeeze civil unions in there.

Gray is right, so I change my earlier answer.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

after passing a resolution condeming the Boy Scouts (which was the right thing to do)

Why?  Don't the Boy Scouts have a right to have a code of conduct?  If they had a rule that said that people who swear can't be Boy Scouts, should California also also condemn that?

If you don't like the rules, don't join the club.  Or found your own club.

Just because an organization has a right to a code of conduct doesn't mean we have to agree with it. The resolution didn't change what the Boy Scouts could do, simply condemned them for something that the legislature, and myself, disagree with. Westboro Baptist "Church" (the godhatesfags guys) haven't done anything illegal and have a right to their views, but that doesn't mean we don't have a right to condemn them for it.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

after passing a resolution condeming the Boy Scouts (which was the right thing to do)

Why?  Don't the Boy Scouts have a right to have a code of conduct?  If they had a rule that said that people who swear can't be Boy Scouts, should California also also condemn that?

If you don't like the rules, don't join the club.  Or found your own club.

Just because an organization has a right to a code of conduct doesn't mean we have to agree with it. The resolution didn't change what the Boy Scouts could do, simply condemned them for something that the legislature, and myself, disagree with. Westboro Baptist "Church" (the godhatesfags guys) haven't done anything illegal and have a right to their views, but that doesn't mean we don't have a right to condemn them for it.

Yeah, but I don't think state legislatures should be in the business of condemning or endorsing anyone's views, be they of the g*dhatesf*gs guy, the KKK, or Amnesty International.

California is how many billions of dollars in debt?  Don't they have more pressing concerns?  (And I could ask a similar question of everyone pushing for the FMA as well.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

there are some states that put amendments to the STATE constitution to a popular vote but I think the Constitution says amendments can be passed by only the legislature. And the current California legislature won't pass this.

No, the state legislatures can be bypassed by sending the amendment to state conventions for ratification, but as with a national convention, I don;t think state conventions have been used yet.

[A18]

It did its job - intimidate activist judges.

[CARLHAYDEN]

there are some states that put amendments to the STATE constitution to a popular vote but I think the Constitution says amendments can be passed by only the legislature. And the current California legislature won't pass this.

No, the state legislatures can be bypassed by sending the amendment to state conventions for ratification, but as with a national convention, I don;t think state conventions have been used yet.

Actually, I think adoption of the repealer of Prohibition went to conventions, as in many states, the Prohibitionists controlled too many legislatures.

[Bogart]

There is another tactic available to states that don't want to approve it, but don't want to be seen as voting down. They can simply delay. Amendments usually have a time limit to get approval from the requisite number of states. Like the ERA, this could die simply by running out of time if certain key states dragged their feet long enough.

[A18]

I think the 27th amendment was originally purposed around 1800, but didn't get enough states to ratify it until recently. But we started using time limits some time after 1800.

BTW - what constitutes a "convention" for ratifying an amendment?

[A18]

Yeah, but Ernest said something about being able to bypass state legislatures by having a convention in the respective states ratify the amendment.