Quote:
Originally Posted by SeattleUte
Come on. There's no "appeasing" those who want a constitutional amendment. That's the whole point of the amendment. Most these people who want it live in places where they'll never legalize gay marriage anyway. That's not good enough for them. They don't want it anywhere in America. I just hope that the American people retain the good sense not to amend the Constitution.
I'll meet them halfway, though. This is actually more of a state's rights issue for me, believe it or not. If Utahns don't want to legalize gay marriage, where I sit right now I'm not ready to get to fired up to want Congress to make them do it with a federal civil rights statute. (I could change my mind.) But it really enrages me that people in Utah or Alabama or the LDS Church want to tell California or Washington they can't marry gay people or recognize gay marriages. It doubly froths me that they just feel that way becuase they're getting reinforcement of their prejudices since childhood from over the pulpit.
I don't live in Utah or Alabama for a reason, and I don't want to contend with what I regard as their backward mores where I live. For aesthetic reasons, I'd like to see the Bill of Rights remain pristine in terms of protecting not anywhere abridging civil liberties.
|
I forgot that you're still concerned about a marriage amendment. IMO, that's about as politically practical as a Right to Life amendment. Strategically SSM supporters should hope that the marriage amendment picks up noticable steam as it would force those the fence sitters to take a side. Even a 50/50 split would be a victory for the SSM supporters, ensuring the status quo where SSM would be determined at a state level.
I could certainly live with this matter remaining a state's rights issue. As it currently stands, I see it as an ideal solution.
I do warn you from getting too smug about the progressivism of your fellow Washingtonians. Your state passed DOMA legislation in 1998 and it has been upheld by the WA Supreme Court.