Remember this was before Lawrence, before ELLEN (or the earlier introduction of a lesbian semi-regular on MAD ABOUT YOU), before the discovery that so many of the Homophobic Congressmen and Preachers were, themselves, closet cases, and when people were panicing. Even then, no one believes the Amendment would have passed, just that defeating it would have been ‘embarrassing’ to Democrats.

But now we’ve had experience with same-sex marriage. Democrats have — theoretically — 60 votes, not 46 in the Senate, and Republicans no longer have 236 votes in the House. The Christianist tumor is, while still causing pain, no longer threating vital organs and is in at least temporary remission on the National stage. The position of Northeast Democrats is no longer ‘leave it to the states’ but full support of ssm — at least by Shumer and Gillibrand.

To give you an elementary civics lesson: an Amendment could be introduced, but it would be assigned to the Judiciary Committee — headed in the House by John Conyers — and then to the Constitution sub-committe — headed by Jerry Nadler, and including Tammy Baldwin, Bill Dellahunt, Mel Watt, Sheila Jackson-Lee and Conyers. In the Senate it would go to Patrick Leahy’s Judiciary Committee — Leahy comes from a state which has permitted SSM by legislative vote — and then to Russ Feingold’s Constitution sub-committee — which includes Durbin, Whitehouse, Kaufman, and Feinstein.

There it would meet the fate of the other hundred Constitutional Amendments that are introduced every year. It would simply be ignored. (The only circumstances in which that subcomittee would even hold hearings on the Amendment would be to discredit it publicly.)

And, btw, if the amendment were as you wrote it — leaving it to the states — it would be very similar to the second part of the 21st Amendment. Which repealed prohibition, nationally, but ‘left it to the states’ knowing that most staes would come around at once, and the others would suffer the consequences of not allowing legal alcohol consumption and eventually come around.

No, there is no danger of such an Amendment even being brought to a vote. But, as I keep insisting, there is a serious danger of a Supreme Court decision declaring that ‘marriage is only between a man and a woman’ and invalidating all state SSM laws.

At this time, no one knew how ssm would work, or what effects it would have, and the Republicans could play on the fears of the ignorant to pretend that the “Full Faith and Credence” provision could be used to force all states to recognize ssms. (They knew better, but when has that stopped the modern Republican Party from playing on fears?)

So Newt’s Gang introduced a Constitutional Amendment on ssm. Even then, no one thought such an Amwendment would pass either House, nor was it intended to Like various “Human Life” and “Parental Rights” Amendments that are still being introduced, it was a way of ’sending a message’ to Christianists that “We Republkicans are fighting for you, but it’s just those godless Democrats fighting us that keep us from giving you what we want.”

It was also designed to ‘trap’ Democrats into offending either religious or gay supporters.

[And, because I'm having that troubke with the comment box I've mentioned in the past, I'll start a new comment to continue the story.]

I think the entire political landscape will be shaken if the District Court decides the 14th amendment protects the right of every American to marry the partner of his/her choice.

But granting your vote count for the sake of argument…

Follow on with your analysis. What do the Republicans do next? They propose a constitutional amendment to institute the status quo ante (ante the District Court decision): each state decides for itself. It’s an straightforward attempt to prevent the courts from deciding the issue. How do you think the vote on that will go, since that is in essence, as you say, the position of the Northeast Democrats?

If the status quo is embedded in the Constitution, then we lose the option of someday seeing a wiser Supreme Court do the right thing.

What happens if someone tries to add section 3 of DOMA to this constitutional amendment? Times have changed but DOMA passed the Senate by a vote of 85-14.

Can the amendment with DOMA language be modified to include an exception for states that have same-sex marriage (a Coakley clause)? What does that vote look like?

None of this is good for us.

The strongest negative position — if it is that — that any Democratic Senator espouses (afaik, I haven’t checked Burris, Landrieu, Nelson or Lincoln) is that it should be ‘left to the states to decide.’ And most of the Northeast Democrats are following the lead of Schumer and Gillibrand — and remember that Scghumer is head of the DSCC — and actually supporting ssm.