Proposed Amendment

Missed this a few weeks ago, but, apparently, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) has proposed a new constitutional amendment which would require an election to fill empty seats in the Senate.

From the Washington Post, which supports it:

SEN. RUSSELL Feingold (D-Wis.) has a problem with all the folks filling vacated seats in the Senate. The issue is not with them personally. Rather, it's how they got there: not by the will of the people but by the will -- or whim -- of the governors of their home states. So Mr. Feingold has introduced a constitutional amendment that will put the power to fill Senate vacancies in the hands of voters through a special election.

Thanks to the election of President Obama, who plucked a vice president and two cabinet secretaries from the Senate, governors in Illinois, Delaware, New York and Colorado were tasked with appointing their successors. In some cases the seats have been treated like family heirlooms or -- allegedly -- like property to be sold to the highest bidder. In another case, the process to choose the next occupant was opaque and unbecoming. But in all cases, how the new senators came to Washington is undemocratic and shouldn't continue.

What Mr. Feingold proposes would be a fix of the 17th Amendment, which gave voters the right to elect their senators. It also gave governors the power to fill vacancies. The Feingold amendment reads, "When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies."

It got me thinking about all the dead and proposed amendments in the past that never saw the light of day. Let's review shall we? These are ones that were actually ratified by some states:

• The Constitutional Apportionment Amendment, which was almost our first amendment, which is unexpired by seems to have become useless now with the population the size it is (for a state to become a state, for example, you have to have 60,000 people... the amendment only made consideration for congressional districts up to 50,000 people).
• The Titles of Nobility Amendment would have rescinded citizenship to anyone who took a title of nobility from another country ... this was proposed two years before the War of 1812 (yea, which means it was proposed in 1810 :-)). (Can still pass - no expiration)
• The Corwin Amendment was essentially a politically correct way of saying that the federal government can't rule on slavery. Period. It was a last-ditch effort before the Civil War, and no southern state actually passed it. (Can still pass -- no expiration.)
• The child labor amendment gave the federal government the right to pass laws against child labor. Seriously. This, however, ended up being unnecessary and the government passed laws anyways. (Can still pass -- no expiration.)
• The controversial Equal Rights Amendment which would have barred discrimination based on sex. Personally, I think it should have gone after more. The ERA has expired and some of the ratifying 35 states (two short of necessary 2/3 for passage) have rescinded their ratification.
• The DC Voting Rights Act would have rescinded the 23rd Amendment and treated DC as a state in representation -- complete with one (maybe more) Representative and two Senators. To this day, I don't know why this hasn't passed. But politics will play in this one -- DC is Democratic territory -- and because we no longer believe in actual represenation, it will never pass.

Then there are hundreds of little amendments that no one ever approved, including (from here):

• Ensuring reproductive freedom for women (2005-2006 Congress)
• Allow non-natural citizens to run for President if they've been a citizen for 20+ years, which we'll call the "Schwarzenegger Amendment" (05-06, 01-02)
• Guarantee the filibuster in the Senate (05-06)
• Lower age of Senator/Representative from 30 and 25 to 21 (03-04)
• Restrict marriage between a man and a woman (03-04)
• Require a federal balanced budget (01-02)
• Specify a right to "equal high quality" health care to all persons (01-02)
• Apply the 5th and 14th amendment to unborn children (99-00)
• Establish the right to have a home (97-98)
• Clarify that the Constitution neither prohibits nor requires school prayer (97-98)
• Clarify the 2nd Amendment (95-96)
• Repeal the 16th Amendment and end income tax (95-96)
• Remove from public office any person convicted of a felony (95-96)
• Provide for run-offs in plurality wins in a Presidential election, which we'll call the "Clinton Amendment" (93-94)
• Representative term limits (91-92)
• Mandatory moments of silence in public schools (91-92)
• Lowering the voting age to 16-year olds (91-92)

Just to clarify the last Amendment to pass was the 27th, and that was 1992, which set a bar on Congress granting mid-term pay raises. This was one of the original 12 Amendments suggested as the Bill of Rights, but it and the Congressional Apportionment Amendment were not passed.

My point in all this is this: most amendments proposed reflect a particularly divisive issue at the time which eventually kind of works itself out. It's only when, after many years of debate, that it seems to be a real problem or a real sticking point before it can pass. I'm not sure how the gubernatorial power over Senatorial replacements will be viewed, but it seems relatively important...

...in fact, when you look at the history of proposed amendments, the Federal Marriage Amendment seems to be ... well ... just another bunch of crazies in Congress proposing a hot button issue amendment.

Equal Marriage Updates

I need, like, a central map that charts everything that is happening in the world of equal marriage -- status of current bills, news items, etc. etc. etc.

• Maine, in the wake of the introduction of an equal marriage bill, has a new anti-gay website launched called the Maine Marriage Initiative, which states that "marriages should be strengthened, no redefined." Like New Hampshire, Maine is an odd New England state that has the propensity to swing towards conservative values while still being pretty solidly Dem. I'm curious to see how this one will turn out -- Vermont, as well, I think is in the same boat.
• North Carolina is also dealing with a new anti-equal marriage campaign, as fundies have targeted the state to create a DOMA -- as it is the last southern state without one. Their creative byline? "One Man. One Woman. That's Marriage." Uh-huh. Except in six countries and two states.
• On the good side, Illinois had an equal marriage bill introduced. What I think is so amazing to me is that we're starting to see the tide turn for no other reason than we are seeing pro-same sex marriage initiatives launched, as opposed to the plethora of anti- bills we have seen go up in the past. Of course, this one is being proposed by a gay state Representative, so I'm sure it will be billed as "special interest."
• Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith has closed the discussion: New York State will not bring up gay marriage this year. Despite his support, despite the Assembly passing the bill, despite Gov. Paterson promising to sign it (and despite probably public opinion in favor of it, I believe)... apparently it's just too much of an issue to bother with this year. My concern at this point: we see a huge conservative swing in 2010 and there goes any hope for it. But, as you know, no one listens to me on these things.
• Despite their otherwise weirdness on all things homo these days, Wyoming legislators rejected the opportunity to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot banning same-sex marriage. I'm really confused by the Rocky Mountain States. Singing Katy Perry: You're hot, then you're cold, you're yes then you're no...
• Speaking of weird Rocky Mountain states, the home of Rep. Musgrove who wrote the Federal Marriage Amendment is having an equal marriage legislation brought before it... by a straight couple. It's nice when other people do our work for us. But, seriously, thanks to the amazing allies who stepped up to the cause and will, probably, do more for it than we could ourselves. We'd get in a tizzy over the language.
• Speaking of amazing allies... on the homefront, our own Dean of Cincinnati, the publisher of the Cincinnati Beacon asks: "Why can't I solemnize gay marriage?" Good question -- and on the front page of the website!!! -- and thanks to our local friends and supporters for everything they do to advance the cause. (The comments are just priceless, btw.)

I just had an idea. Hrm. I need to make a phone call to the HRC, and stat.

LGBT HISTORY: It's happened before... and failed.

In 1912, the Anti-Miscegenation Amendment was introduced which read:

"Intermarriage between negros or persons of color and Caucasians... within the United States... is forever prohibited."

This was around the time the first states were allowing for interracial marriage -- i.e., miscegenation, which was first approved in Massachusetts in 1913.

Does this sound familiar?

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."

See, bigots have always tried to limit marriage based on their pre-existing notions of what marriage should and should not be.

Silly bigots.

LAW: Florida law on its way out

Finally.

The law is up to be challenged again in Florida that bans gay people from adopting.

Let's hope they carry through this time.

From the Miami Herald article:

At the heart of the Monroe case is a 13-year-old boy with learning disabilities and special needs who has lived in his Key West foster father's two-story home since the Department of Children & Families placed him there in 2001. The boy is identified as John Doe. The father, 52, is not identified.

Audlin appointed the foster father as guardian for the boy in 2006. At a recent hearing, the boy testified he wanted the man to be his ''forever father'' -- like all the other kids had -- ''because I love him,'' the order says.

A home study by a social worker ''highly'' recommended the guardian and his partner be allowed to adopt the boy, saying the two men provided a ''loving and nurturing home,'' provided ''fair and consistent'' discipline and are financially secure, the order
says.

Miami attorney Alan Mishael, who represents John Doe's guardian, declined to discuss the ruling, since Audlin has not yet published it formally. He said the ruling is less about public policy than the welfare of a former foster child who wants a father of his own.

''This is a case about a young man who already had a permanent guardian but wanted to have a father,'' Mishael said. ``That's what the case is about. That's all it's about.''

Bout damn time. Fuck you Bushes for letting this carrying on (and fuck you Crist for not doing anything about it either).

I will never forgive a Bush for this. I will never forgive a Bush for the Federal Marriage Amendment. I will never forgive McCain for picking Sarah "pray the gay out" Palin.

Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you.

Am I getting through? Am I being clear?