[lbo-talk] after the marriage amendment failure...

Michael Pollak mpollak at panix.com
Sun Jul 18 09:31:28 PDT 2004


On Sun, 18 Jul 2004, the Hill was cited:


> The Hill - July 15, 2004
>
> New GOP gay-ban tactics
> Court powers could be taken away, says majority leader By Jonathan E. Kaplan


>
> Realizing that a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage faces
> little chance of passing soon, if ever, House Republicans yesterday
> discussed alternative approaches, including stripping federal courts of
> jurisdiction over the issue, passing a federal law to define marriage

Wait a second, I'm missing something. That's exactly what the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act does. Why would they need another one? Is there is a hidden loophole in it?

Sounds like they want to pass it every year just to get another headline.

Michael



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list