One reason why Senators don't tend to get to the Big Chair, especially if they are still serving.

It does not matter. He will do whichever enhances his chances of winning, either "absent" or "for". Remember that the Dem core constituencies are just about holding power, and losing elections is not what garnering power is all about. They hand out free-passes by the dozen. In the infamous words of, was it Ms Ireland? or some other, notable feminist: I would give give Bill Clinton a BJ if it keeps abortion on demand available.

...and so thousands of gays vote Nader. Kerry's stuck between a rock and a nutcase.

This is an easy call for Kerry, he will be with Bush for the constitutional admendment, however I truly believe that Bush is not supporting this for political gain. (Just call me naive).

MG, above is correct that it will have no effect at all on Kerry's support from Democrats.

H-man - its the independents and moderate Republicans Kerry might lose if he votes against the amendment

No matter which way Kerry votes, it will be fun to watch him twist up like a small intestine. Bush showed everyone where he stands in about 5 minutes.

AWW --

I believe that in echoing my comment, h-man was refering to Kerry's voting FOR the ammendment, seeking to capture those you point out, AND getting a free pass from the liberal core of the Dems.

As for me, I think the amendment is a bad idea, because to my way of thinking marriage is a states' rights issue (which is also why I was so disgusted with the way the MA Supreme Court short-circuited the democratic process; this sort of issue is for the legislatures and peoples of the individual states to decide, not the courts). However, the issue is not one I'm going to lose much sleep over, and I respect GWB all the more for taking what every pundit is going to term a suicidal stand on this issue...and I'm REALLY going to enjoy watching Kerry and Edwards twist themselves up in knots trying to stay on all sides of the issue.

Joe -

Nobody likes to resort to constitutional amendments, but what guarantees do the people of a state who would not ratify same-sex marriages have that the "Full Faith and Credit" provisions of our federalist system will not impose it on them. And, if and when that happens, remember that it is likely that the ratifying (exporting) state would have had that right created by judges, or maybe coerced legislators, but not a public outcry.

Given the Massachusetts Supreme Court started this brouhaha in the first place, if the Senate Republicans are smart, they'll schedule the vote for about a week before the DNC convention in Boston, so that whichever way the senator votes will still be on the front pages just before the delegates gather at the Fleet Center.

MG
So lets have an amendment that focuses on that.

"No organ of the Federal government shall have the authority to dictate to the States what forms marriages in those states shall take, nor who shall be eligible. The "full faith and credit clause" does not apply to marriage."

That way if the people of Massachusessts want gay marriage (or haven't the gumption to impeach their SJC if they don't) they can have it, and Utah can have polygamy if they want to, but nobocy else will be required to follow them unwillingly.

In twenty or thirty years it should become clear which states made the right decisions, and the others will follow them. That's one of the nice things about federalism - questions of political philosophy can be answered experimentally.

Ralph:

By far the best suggestion I have heard yet.

Ralph --

The problem with your seemingly less controversial (judgemental?) ammendment is that it protects marriage in non-susbcribing states at the cost of increasing the chances that all the other kinds of slippery slope unions (as you yourself noted) not only be recognized but also defined as marriage by that state. At some point down this slope, a capricious state's desire to be different would undermine the broader, legitimate concept of state rights. (And, by the way, my tolerance for such capriciousness would be nil if the caprice is the product of 4:3 judicial decisions and gridlock legislations.)

I'm extremely Federalist, and rather self-centered. I don't care what kind of crazy stuff "capricious" states get up to, so long as it stops at Tyngsboro.

I figure the less radical an amendment is, the more likely it is to pass. So our best chance of keeping the crazyness in Massachusetts is to promote the least sufficient amendment.

When it comes to judicial activism, I'm a lot more bothered by Claremont, since that affects me.