he last time the Constitution was amended was in 1992. It became the 27th Amendment and limited congressional pay raises.
We could claim, with validity, that the most recent serious attempts to amend the Constitution go back to 1972 with the so-called Equal Rights Amendment. The proposal read: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of sex." It made it through both chambers of Congress and was eventually ratified by 35 states, which was far short of the number needed to make it the law of the land. Following that failed attempt there was the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment. That was proposed in 1978. Had it garnered the two-thirds vote needed for ratification, it would have granted Washington D.C., the full voting rights in Congress of a state. It was not ratified and it expired unratified in 1985.
And now the burning issue is Gay Marriage; with the GOP passionately involved because, I'm sure, there are people who truly believe that we'll all go to hell should States permit two of the same sex to marry. Yes, gay marriage is back in the very political spotlight, as the Senate begins debate on a constitutional amendment banning it. The president, of course, is speaking out on behalf of the measure. The outcome is just about certain. There won't be sufficient votes in the Senate to construct the two-thirds majority needed to pass a constitutional amendment. If that is a foregone conclusion it becomes hard to see any other motive than political for the timing of this issue. It is directly connected to the fall elections. The amendment consists of two sentences: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage, or the legal incidents thereof, be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."
If I read this correctly the amendment would hardly be effective because it would still permit civil unions and other forms of (as critics might proclaim) "counterfeit marriages" in the states. Meanwhile, in New York, the state's highest court is considering an appeal that could eventually legalize gay marriage there.
Politics, but then, what else might one expect from people like the Tennessee Republican, Sen. Bill Frist, who is retiring from the Senate at the end of the current term and then might be running for the presidency. So in his case, his advocacy for the Marriage Proposal Amendment might also been seen through the perspective of his ambitions, just as he has scheduled a further constitutional amendment banning flag-burning. Could that possibly be considered as highly political, too?