Well, have you? :o
Printable View
Well, have you? :o
It was a genuine proposal --- if you think I'm "missing the point", then please explain which point, so I can address it head-on.
From my POV, "State Rights" tailoring legislation for/by their voters doesn't include amending their State Constitution to deny certain groups civil rights. Substitute same-sex marriage with interracial marriage, and it's clear what I mean. But if you weren't referring to State Rights, then would it kill ya to give me another clue? :noob:
They'd need a special convention but the total number of states you need to pass an amendment via convention is 38. Which happens to be how many have passed this sort of thing for themselves. So Lebbie's not right. I'm rather surprised that it's the case but it looks like it's definitely within the realm of possibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
What's required to hold this special convention?
edit to clarify to Wraith and others:
I understood what was meant by "limited damage" by using state powers...instead of an Amendment to the US Constitution. However, if all 50 states amend their constitutions to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions, as NC has done....the result would be the same as a nation-wide ban.
Just because it can be done separately, state-by-state, doesn't mean damage isn't done to civil rights of GLBT minorities. And even though it's possible to see a push for an Amendment to the US Constitution, I still think federal gov't is too dysfunctional and politicized to try it. They're in constant campaigning and re-election mode, and probably prefer to leave those controversial social issues to the states, where it's been pretty "effective".
Seriously, if for some bizarre reason that kind of special convention was held, and an amendment passed...we'd see millions of people protesting. And it wouldn't look like the Day Without a Mexican protests about immigration or Papers Please state laws.