Um

[serafina20]

Laurell K. Hamilton wants us all to vote no on the proposal to amend the Constutuion to block homosexual marraige. She wrote the entry on July 31.

Didn't that already happen, or did I miss something?

Oh, and then go to her guest book, in which three or four people complain about having her views shoved down their throat. Finally. Someone topped her in the idiot category.

Comments

[nataliadarimini.livejournal.com]

I think it was blocked in one branch of congress, but is coming up in the other.

[serafina20.livejournal.com]

I think it was blocked in one branch of congress, but is coming up in the other.

You need a 2/3s vote of approval in both houses for an amendment to pass. If it fails in one, I believe it's dead. Plus, you need 3/4ths of the states to ratify it after that. That's when we can vote on the issue, as Hamilton was urging us to do. But until then, all we can do is contact our representatives. Which many of us did. Back when the issue was, you know. Relevant. Which is isn't anymore.

LOL

[mercy.livejournal.com]

I'm glad I'm not the only one that notices that. When I saw that entry I just rolled my eyes and scrolled past.

Re: LOL

[serafina20.livejournal.com]

I'm glad I'm not the only one that notices that.

I was just dumbstruck. I mean, I have a low estimation of her intelligence because she thinks she writes good porn, but I realize that's subjective. Urging us to vote on something that's a. over and done with and b. we had no say in at this point in time? Stupid.

Re: LOL

[mercy.livejournal.com]

Exactly. Just another dissappointment to add to the pile. I'm about done with the book series anyway. Bleh.

[manavilins.livejournal.com]

I'll be voting no on an amendment to my state constitution Tuesday. But I don't think that's what she's talking about.

[serafina20.livejournal.com]

I'll be voting no on an amendment to my state constitution Tuesday. But I don't think that's what she's talking about.

It occured to me that she might have been meaning state as well. But I read it three times and she kept talking about Bush and the Consutitution and Bill of Rights, so I think she was talking on a federal level.

[hederahelix.livejournal.com]

It's possible that if she hasn't been following the issue closely she would only have heard that the FMA passed in the House and not heard a week or so ago(I forget the exact date because when the Democratic convention was on, that was pretty much all the television I was watching, so it was a week of seriously political coverage that I can't tell one day from the next) that it failed to pass the Senate. If she came into the game late and didn't know it had failed in the Senate, or if she's afraid that post election, Dems will lose enough seats that it would pass the Senate if it was brought up for vote again, then maybe she's just beating the rush and getting her worrying done early.

More likely, she's just so riled up about it that she skipped a few steps and made an appeal to her readers on the part that they can still have a voice in.

Still, it seems to me that she should have done a little more research before she posted, which would have allowed her to get the details right, but, whatever. It could be worse. She could be supporting it, I suppose.

Thanks for pointing it out. Hadn't even seen her blog before.

[serafina20.livejournal.com]

More likely, she's just so riled up about it that she skipped a few steps and made an appeal to her readers on the part that they can still have a voice in.

I think that's more likely. She made no mention of it failing once and of future consequences. But, correct me if I'm wrong, isn't it very rare for the same or similar amendments to be introduced once it's failed once? I thought that was one of the deals with the ERA; it failed and can't be brought up again (under the same wording, at least).

She could be supporting it, I suppose.

True.