A Statement from Russ Feingold

[Rex Kickass]

For those of you who don't know, the constitutional amendment to formally restrict same sex couple's partnership rights was voted on in committee today. You probably didn't hear about it both because you didn't care and because the vote was held in a small room off the Senate floor and not in the traditional chamber that the committee usually uses in another governmental office building.

 

One Russ Feingold, a Senator from Wisconsin objected to the manner in which this vote was held, (all but behind closed doors) and walked out of the proceedings after offering a statement. Then he released this.

 

Objecting to the Judiciary Committee's Handling of the Constitutional Amendment on Marriage

 

Today's markup of the constitutional amendment concerning marriage, in a small room off the Senate floor with only a handful of people other than Senators and their staffs present, was an affront to the Constitution. I objected to its consideration in such an inappropriate setting and refused to help make a quorum. I am deeply disappointed that the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee went forward with the markup over my objection. Unfortunately, the Majority Leader has set a politically motivated schedule for floor consideration of this measure that the Chairman felt compelled to follow, even though he says he opposes the amendment.

 

Constitutional amendments deserve the most careful and deliberate consideration of any matter that comes before the Senate. In addition to hearings and a subcommittee markup, such a measure should be considered by the Judiciary Committee in the light of day, open to the press and the public, with cameras present so that the whole country can see what is done. Open and deliberate debate on such an important matter cannot take place in a setting such as the one chosen by the Chairman of the Committee today.

 

The Constitution of the United States is an historic guarantee of individual freedom. It has served as a beacon of hope, an example to people around the world who yearn to be free and to live their lives without government interference in their most basic human decisions. I took an oath when I joined this body to support and defend the Constitution. I will continue to fight this mean-spirited, divisive, poorly drafted, and misguided amendment when it comes to the Senate floor.

[YASNY]

I am totally opposed to opening a constitutional convention for this. In fact, I can't think of a single issue right now that I'd be in favor of letting those bastards get their hands on our constitution.

Edited May 18, 2006 by YASNY

[Soxbadger]

If the govt. recognizes female-male marriages then it should recognize same sex marriages.

 

I dont think a constitutional amendment would pass either way though as I dont think you can get 3/4 of the states to agree.

[NorthSideSox72]

Government and marriage of any kind should never be in the same sentence. Let alone the Constitution. Our government, state and federal, has no business in the field of marriage or any other personal relationship.

[bmags]

he's right. And the thought of "29th amendment - marriage shall only be between a man and a woman, even if the woman looks a lot like a man" just sickens me.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

As much as I agree with them in principle, the Senate has far more important things to be concerned with nowadays than whether Heather has 2 mommies or something.

[Rex Kickass]

It won't pass. There wouldn't be more than one or two Democrats that would vote for this amendment in the first place and even Specter says he's going to vote against it. He just has to carry the water and force the issue through to the full Senate floor.

[YASNY]

It won't pass. There wouldn't be more than one or two Democrats that would vote for this amendment in the first place and even Specter says he's going to vote against it. He just has to carry the water and force the issue through to the full Senate floor.

 

Doesn't a proposed constitutional admendment have to be ratified by 2/3 of the states before a convention can be called? That's what I'm afraid of .... that there will be enough states ratify this to open a convention. Once that happens, then the constitution is at the mercy of the pols at the convention.

[Rex Kickass]

Before this amendment can go to the states, it has to get 67 votes in the Senate.

 

I doubt it will get 55.

 

If you think this shouldn't be an amendment up for consideration, call your Senator then and voice your displeasure. My Senators don't support the proposed Federal Hate Amendment. Do yours?

[jasonxctf]

if it needs 2/3rds to pass, then you'd need 17 states to vote against it.

 

1- MA

2- CA

3- OR

4- WA

5- NY

6- NJ

7- DE

8- RI

9- VT

10- NH

11- ME

12- CT

13- HI

14- IL

15- MD

16- MI

17- WI

18- WY (Let Freedom Ring)

[southsider2k5]

I am totally opposed to opening a constitutional convention for this. In fact, I can't think of a single issue right now that I'd be in favor of letting those bastards get their hands on our constitution.

 

I agree with this 100%. There is no issue I see important enough that we need to change the constiution right now.

 

If the govt. recognizes female-male marriages then it should recognize same sex marriages.

 

I dont think a constitutional amendment would pass either way though as I dont think you can get 3/4 of the states to agree.

 

At best this is a state to state issue. I do believe that its none of our business to enforce religious mandates on the general public.

 

 

Government and marriage of any kind should never be in the same sentence. Let alone the Constitution. Our government, state and federal, has no business in the field of marriage or any other personal relationship.

 

Just because of the nature of the laws, IF it is going to be regulated, it is definately the states choice, and not the feds. The feds have enough national problems to worry about.

[Soxbadger]

SS2K,

 

Impossible for the Federal Govt. to stay out of it.

 

Due to the "full faith and credit clause",

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/co....articleiv.html

 

If 1 state allows for gay marriage, then the other states would have to give full faith and credit to that union. That is why conservatives are trying to get an amendment passed to ban it. Otherwise a liberal state will eventually pass a law that allows gay marriage in their state, once this occurs the other 50 states will be bound to recognize it. Then it just becomes a matter of going to that state to get married and then returning home.

 

This was how some couples got around early 20th century divorce laws of some states. Not every state allowed the same sort of divorces (most specifically no fault) and therefore if a couple wanted a divorce but lived in the wrong state they would go to the other state.

 

On everything else, you need 2/3 of the state legislatures to ask for an amendment. This has never happened, every amendment has been proposed through congress.

 

If an amendment is passed in congress then you need 3/4's of the states to agree. 3/4 will be impossible, thus why this amendment is nothing more than political posturing for the next election.

 

In the end, the govt will eventually have to give the same benefits to same sex marriage as opposite sex marriage. There just is no legal argument to the contrary. The United States courts have consistently held that marriage is a fundemental right. If it is that fundemental, then as time passes and younger judges are elected the laws will be changed.

[Rex Kickass]

The DOMA which has yet to be found unconstitutional excludes same sex marriages from being recognized from state to state.

[Soxbadger]

DOMA has never been challanged. The only way it can be challanged is by some one who was married in the state of Mass. and then has standing to challange the full faith and credit exemption. It would have to be a specific case where the denial of full faith and credit some how was infringing on one sides rights.

 

A potential would be:

 

A couple is married in Mass.

 

The couple is divorced in Mass and there is a domestic relations order that requires alimony, child support, etc. The person then moves to another state and that state refuses to enforce the domestic relations order because they do not recognize gay marriage.

 

This would then bring the full faith and credit clause show down. But as long as the Supreme Court does not have to rule on it, they will not. It is very important to keep it out of court because it will be faced with either having to:

 

1) Erode full faith and credit clause

 

2) Support full faith and credit clause and force recognition of gay marriage in other states.

 

Conservatives on the bench may not want to go after the clause, because generally conservatives like to pride themselves as strict constructionists. The constitution specifically made the full faith and credit clause so that states would keep their own sovereignty, and the rules and laws that they passed would have effect through out the country. If you start to erode the full faith, then you erode state's rights even farther, atleast imo.

 

You can argue that by allowing states to not recognize other states that it is actually giving them more power, but I do not agree with that assessment. While they will have more power in controlling the laws of their own state, they will have less power in assuring that the laws in their state actually mean something outside of their own border. While state conflicts like this are for the most part a thing of the past, if the door begins to open, who knows where it will stop.