Skip to main content

View Diary: Dominos! No, Not Pizza or Indochina: Marriage Equality States. Delaware Falls! Updates. (24 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  incidentially, 2 more states means (6+ / 0-)

    they'll never get their federal constitutional amendment.

    •  Ah, interesting point. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jayden
    •  Realistically we'd need three (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jpmassar

      because opinion in Iowa isn't quite there yet (I'm assuming all states that legislatively enacted equality would refuse to ratify; for the court-ordered states, CA's legislature did vote for equality twice but got vetoed, CT's legislature amended the marriage code to provide equality shortly after the court order, and MA would be extraordinarily unlikely to ratify).

      However, there's still the danger of a watered-down amendment that would leave the marriage equality decision up to the individual states. Whether, by the time such an amendment could be ratified, it would have any effect other than on 5 or so deep-South states is questionable, but we need to be on the lookout.

      Sometimes truth is spoken from privilege and falsehood is spoken to power. Good intentions aren't enough.

      by ebohlman on Tue May 07, 2013 at 06:23:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Got to get through the Senate first. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jpmassar

        The standard way of doing Constitutional Amendments requires 2/3 of the Senate. I think we've got 34 Democrats who would vote against (while we lose Iowa, I think we pick up both of Oregon's Senators and both of New Jersey's for example)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site