• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • My Social Media
  • About
    • About Mark Draughn
    • Testimonials
    • Other Authors
      • About Gary Olson
      • About Ken Gibson
      • About Joel Rosenberg
    • Disclosures
    • Terms and Conditions

Windypundit

Classical liberalism, criminal laws, the war on drugs, economics, free speech, technology, photography, sex work, cats, and whatever else comes to mind.

On the Unlikelihood of a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage

June 7, 2006 By Mark Draughn 2 Comments

A friend of mine was concerned a few days ago that the anti-gay-marriage amendment might actually pass, which would cause her some personal heartache. I told her I thought it was just a stunt, and not worth worrying about.

Other people seem to think so too. For example, the D.C. Examiner supports a ban on same-sex marriage, but thinks trying to pass an amendment is a waste of time, saying “expending any effort on behalf of the proposal now is literally a fool’s errand”.

An ABC News poll indicates that even though most Americans oppose same-sex marriage, they also oppose a constitutional amendment to ban it. From what I’ve seen, a lot of folks on the right don’t want same-sex marriage, but they also don’t want the federal government defining marriage.

As I was writing this, another group of people spoke up: The United States Senate has rejected the amendment, giving it only 49 of the 60 votes needed to move to the next stage of voting.

I’m no expert at politics, but I think part of the reason the amendment is unlikely to pass is that a lot of people on the right regard it as a cynical attempt to earn their support. One of the reasons Bush’s popularity is so low these days is that he has betrayed a lot of his supporters. He hasn’t trimmed the size of government or launched a school vouchers program or reduced taxes or made progress on any of the other conservative issues. He’s not getting a lot of cooperation these days.

Some folks at Reason magazine agree with this and add another reason the amendment is probably doomed: Marriage is traditionally defined by the states. In states where a large group of people are upset about same-sex marriage they have been able to get it banned, at which point they lose interest in the issue.

I’m not optimistic for the prospects of widespread same-sex marriage in this country, but I don’t think a total constitutional ban is ever going to happen.

Filed Under: Political Science

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Matt says

    June 8, 2006 at 12:33 am

    Not to mention that the state legislatures which would have to ratify any amendment that actually passed Congress are rather jealous of their own powers, and hesitant to cede authority to Washington when they actually have a choice about it.

    Reply
  2. Windypundit says

    June 8, 2006 at 9:47 am

    Yeah, that’s a good point. An amendment has a long, long way to go before it becomes part of the constitution.

    Reply

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

Primary Sidebar

Search

Recent Posts

  • Swift Falling
  • Renovations
  • A familiar war in Iran
  • On the shooting of Renee Good
  • Swift Descending
  • GOA on Trump
  • Yes, It’s a Bribe
  • Talking to my fellow libertarians about DOGE

Where else to find me

  • Twitter
  • Post
  • Mastodon

Bloggy Goodness

  • DrugWar Rant
  • Hit & Run
  • Honest Courtesan
  • Nobody's Business
  • Popehat

Blawgs

  • appellatesquawk
  • Chasing Truth. Catching Hell.
  • Crime & Federalism
  • Crime and Consequences Blog
  • Criminal Defense
  • CrimLaw
  • D.A. Confidential
  • Defending People
  • Gamso For the Defense
  • Graham Lawyer Blog
  • Koehler Law Blog
  • Legal Satyricon
  • New York Personal Injury Law Blog
  • Norm Pattis
  • Probable Cause
  • Simple Justice
  • Tempe Criminal Defense
  • The Civil Rights Lawyer
  • The Trial Warrior Blog
  • The Volokh Conspiracy
  • Underdog Blog
  • Unwashed Advocate

Bloggers

  • Eric Zorn
  • ExCop-LawStudent
  • InstaPundit
  • Marathon Pundit
  • Speakeasy Blog
  • SWOP Chicago

Geek Stuff

  • Charlie's Diary
  • Google Blogoscoped
  • Schneier on Security
  • The Ancient Gaming Noob
  • The Daily WTF
  • xkcd

Resources

  • CIA World Factbook
  • Current Impact Risks
  • EFF: Bloggers
  • Institute for Justice
  • Jennifer Abel
  • StrategyPage
  • Wikipedia
  • WolframAlpha

Frozen in Amber

  • a Public Defender
  • Agitator
  • Bert P. Krages II
  • Dan Heller
  • Defending Dandelions
  • Indefensible
  • Last One Speaks
  • Leslie's Omnibus
  • not for the monosyllabic
  • Not Guilty
  • Preaching to the Choir
  • Ravings of a Feral Genius

Copyright © 2026 Mark Draughn · Magazine Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress