« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »


Is NOM really going to push for a constitutional convention on marriage?

by Jeremy Hooper

A while back, I told you about the National Organization For Marriage purchasing a few domain names that pointed to the possibility of a "marriage convention." At first I assumed the domain names to be about a summit or conference of some sort that NOM was cooking up. However, after I saw that they'd also purchased names referring to a "Marriage ConCon" it became clear that a constitutional convention focused on marriage inequality was what they had in the cards. The idea being that a group of states (you'd need at least thirty-four) could, for the first time in our nation's history, call a constitutional convention where they could propose amendments to then be sent to all the states for ratification (you'd need at least thirty-eight).

After Friday's decision, NOM chair John Eastman floated that possibility to National Review Online:

A third option, one that is also constitutionally envisioned, would be a constitutional amendment, originating either in Congress or in the states. An amendment that defines marriage as it is in nature, an institution rooted in the biological complementarity of men and women, would address the immediate consequence of today’s decision. But a structural amendment should also be considered, something that would restore a check on what the Founders described as the least powerful but what has become the most dangerous branch. Such an amendment might allow supermajorities of the states or of Congress to overturn erroneous decisions, or it might revive the Constitution’s language that judges serve during “good behavior” rather than until they voluntarily resign, die, or commit a “high crime and misdemeanor” necessary for impeachment.

Read more at: NRO

Clearly Congress is not going to move forward with a new Federal Marriage Amendment, an idea that didn't pass even during the height of the anti-equality Bush years. So is this "in the states" idea that Eastman teases really something NOM finds feasible?

Well, maybe. Because it turns out that NOM just renewed those domain names referring to the convention/con con. They were all set to expire over the weekend, but today NOM renewed them:

Screen Shot 2015-06-29 At 11.37.08 Am
Screen Shot 2015-06-29 At 11.44.54 Am
[Domain Tools]

The idea is so unprecedented, wacky, and desperate, that it's hard to imagine this as a real idea that a real organization would really oppose. But then again, this is NOM we are talking about. This is the same group that once vowed to drive a wedge between blacks and gays. Dividing the nation with nutty ideas is sort of NOM's thing.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper

Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails