Moore Seeks Convention to Stop Gay Marriage
Via the AP: Ala. chief justice jumps into gay marriage fight
Roy Moore has sent letters to all 50 governors urging them to get their legislatures to call for a convention to add an amendment to the U.S. Constitution recognizing only unions between one man and one woman.
Moore says the country’s moral foundation is under attack, and a state-initiated convention under Article V of the Constitution is the only way to stop it. An Article V convention has never been held.
Getting even a handful of states to go along would be quite a task, and getting 2/3rds of the states to call for such a convention is a impossibility. I leave to the dear readers to decide what word that means “really, really impossible” to describe the odds of 3/4th of the states (either legislatures or state conventions) needed to actually ratify.
Moore appears to have jumped onto the Mark Levin Constitutional Convention Bandwagon. I thought the wheels had fallen off that one. Guess not.
Have his fund raising letters gone out yet?
I’d be curious how much Ka-Ching he rakes in from this.
Five or ten years ago, maybe. Now, not a chance.
Weren’t there people five to ten years ago who argued against a marriage amendment because it was already federal law?
@Pinky: I think that the argument Clinton made to liberals in regards to signing DOMA was that it preempted a constitutional amendment process. Pretty good argument, in retrospect.
Just to repeat, foreign wars of choice = moral and patriotic duty, while gay people getting married = attack on the moral foundation of the country. Sounds about right, I guess.
@CSK:
Nope, it appears that bandwagon is picking up speed.
Fodder for ballot initiatives. What better way to get out the vote than rile the up crowd to cast votes of bitterness against those evil people? Grifters gonna grift.
Roy Moore’s speaking fees must have gone into terminal decline, so now he’s desperate to get more attention to himself.
@CB: Not a sequitur to be found.
“Some people can sing, some can’t…”
Thank You Orson Welles. RIP
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6pFDXI5KK8
Thank you Justice Moore. I need this constitutional amendment to protect my marriage. I’ve been married 32 years and now gay people want to destroy it.
Seriously, wouldn’t Moore be happier in North Korea?
@Pinky:
What have sequitors ever done for us?
In my defense, this is my default reaction every time I see a headline like this. I find it so ridiculous that this is still being debated so fiercely that all I can do is shake my head, chuckle, and take amusement in the hypocrisy. Which usually comes out in the form of nonsequitors.
@Scott F.:I heard Tom Coburn wants to establish
a “Convention Hub” in each State.
Can we just take it back and let the South secede? I’m embarrassed to be a citizen of the same country as Alabamans.
Never heard of him.
Given the history of Republicans on anti-gay crusades, anyone starting a pool on just when we will find Moore in a “wide stance” situation?
How about “so mind-boggingly close to zero chance that I’m surprised his attempts aren’t treated as fraud”?
Especially considering that SSM is now legal in 16 states or approximately 1/3rd of the nation. And chances are it will be implemented in more states before an amendment could work it’s way through the process.
Granted, in some states SSM was implemented through judicial action. Still one has to be pretty disconnected from reality (or at least the actual numbers) to believe that enough states would reverse course in order to clear the 3/4 hurdle.
Does Moore know that at a Constitutional Convention the attending parties are not limited to the issue at question? They could pass an amendment banning him to Somalia. Certainly not likely, but who knows?
@OzarkHillbilly:
I would definitely support such an amendment, however the question is, could we get 38 states to support it?
Why not roll the clock all the way back to before marriage was changed at all? You know, the whole no divorce, a wife is the physical property of a man, easier to behead your wives than get an annulment or divorce thing. Isn’t the argument to not change marriage? Does this then by extension seek to undo all the changes over the last 400 years?
Pragmatically, marriage provides successor-ship and establishes a line of legal descent. A good number of the gay community already adopt discarded straight people and provide them a supporting, loving environment they would never have found in the state system. Seems correct to be able to legally establish the parents and the child. Toungue-in-cheek, if they want to get married, let ’em have the misery too.