Senate panel backs gay marriage ban

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Kagom, May 18, 2006.

  1. Kagom
    Offline

    Kagom Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    2,161
    Thanks Received:
    141
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Vicksburg, MS
    Ratings:
    +141
    WASHINGTON (AFP) - A Senate panel approved a controversial proposal to write a gay marriage ban into the US Constitution.

    The proposed amendment will go to the full Senate on June 5 for what is expected to be a heated debate on a ban backed by President George W. Bush.

    The American people support protecting traditional marriage, and we should give this amendment due consideration through the full legislative process," Republican Senator Sam Brownback said.

    "We must continue to fight for the protection of traditional marriage."

    The proposed constitutional amendment faces an uphill battle as it must be passed by two-thirds of senators, two-thirds of representatives in the House and then approved by two-thirds of the 50 US states.

    However, the numbers of legislators, both for and against gay marriage, who say the matter is better left to the individual states, are too many to allow passage.

    A previous attempt failed in Congress in 2004.

    The measure was approved Thursday by all Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

    Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy called the the proposal right-wing demagoguery. His colleague Russ Feingold called it a maneuver by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to mobilize the religious right prior to November legislative elections, which look increasingly difficult for Republicans, now that Bush's approval rating has withered.

    A poll released in March showed 51 percent of Americans oppose gay marriage, down from a high of 63 percent in 2004.

    According to the Human Rights Campaign, a group defending gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals, 18 states have adopted amendments to their own constitutions specifically defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman and 27 others have laws to that effect.

    Gays say that without marriage they lose important rights such as inheritance of property, immigration, adoption or making medical decisions for an ill or disabled partner.

    Vermont and Connecticut allow same-sex couples to join in civil unions, which grant many of the rights of marriage.

    Only one state, Massachusetts, now allows same-sex marriages, based on a decision handed down by its supreme court.

    "I'm not prepared to surrender to the courts," said Republican Senator Wayne Allard, backer of the constitutional amendment. He said that a Senate debate was necessary to advance the cause of stopping gay marriage.

    "It's important to move the issue forward," he said.

    In Maryland, which borders Washington, a judge found in January that local law prohibiting gay marriage was unconstitutional.

    The legality of same-sex marriage is also before courts in the states of Nebraska, California, New Jersey, New York and Washington.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060518/pl_afp/uspoliticsgays_060518225553
     
  2. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379

    Just another attempt by a desperate GOP to throw some raw meat to their lunatic fringe base in time for the mid-term elections. It's not like there aren't more pressing issues to deal with...Like port security...Like a ballooning federal budget deficit...Like the war in Iraq...Like illegal domestic spying.

    God knows...them homosexyuls are out ot turn all us straight folks queer.

    What a bunch of bullshit.
     
  3. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,560
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,436
    But...but...the poll numbers are down... and the repubs are in trouble for the mid-term elections. Gays taking over, immigrants spilling over the border, vague "security" threats (while heaven forbid they should actually make changes to ensure our security)... how else ya gonna get them out to vote?
     
  4. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    Politicians doing things to try to get people to vote for them. What an odd concept! :rotflmao:
     
  5. dmp
    Offline

    dmp Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    13,088
    Thanks Received:
    741
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Ratings:
    +741
    Beautiful. Such a law is one step to bring our society back under control; and fight off stupid liberals. :)
     
  6. Kagom
    Offline

    Kagom Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    2,161
    Thanks Received:
    141
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Vicksburg, MS
    Ratings:
    +141
    Because I"m sure gay people are destroying it.
     
  7. ScreamingEagle
    Offline

    ScreamingEagle Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    12,887
    Thanks Received:
    1,610
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,159
    "lunatic fringe base"? The real lunatics are gays and their supporters who think they really want gay marriage because their political leaders say so. Just where are all the gays rushing into marriage? There seems to be relatively few. Most gays seem to prefer their sexual freedom, not monogamy. "In the Netherlands, which has had same-sex marriage as a legal option for the longest period (over four years), between 2% and 6% of gays and lesbians have entered marriages."
    http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_04_23-2006_04_29.shtml#1146251331
    It's also a lie when the left claims that gays are denied rights such as inheritance of property, etc. There are other legal ways than through marriage that they can get meet their needs.

    The gay issue is just about as pressing as any other political issue....it's not bullshit....the radical left is manipulating the gay movement to implement their ultimate goals of destroying marriage, the family unit, our traditions and culture, which they must do in order to institute their own. We need to push back, not because we hate gays, but because we don't want the radical left culture and ideology to take over our country.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. Mr. P
    Offline

    Mr. P Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    11,329
    Thanks Received:
    618
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South of the Mason Dixon
    Ratings:
    +620
    All politics, nothing more....BUT, Don’t mess with the Constitution (yer not smart enough) Big mistake!
     
  9. mattskramer
    Offline

    mattskramer Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    5,852
    Thanks Received:
    359
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +359
    Oh, please. I’ve covered this issue time after time. Some people just refuse to read anything that counters their already made-up opinions. It is like talking to a wall but I have nothing better to do right now so, here I go again.

    First of all, let’s define terms. If you think that even to allow civil union status to gay couples is equivalent to giving special rights to gays then the debate stops here. I see it this way:

    Heterosexuals, by definition, prefer to have loving and sexual relationships with people of the opposite sex. They are allowed to do so. Also, if they get married, they are allowed to benefits that go with being a married couple.

    Homosexuals, by definition, prefer to have loving and sexual relationships with people of the same sex. In some states, they are not allowed to do so. Also, their unions are not generally recognized. Therefore, they are not allowed the same benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy.

    I think that consenting adult couples should be allowed to engage in whichever intimate relationship (homosexual civil union or heterosexual marriage) they choose and reap the benefits thereof. Therefore, civil unions, in my opinion, constitute an equal right.

    Just because many people choose to not engage in legal activities does not mean they we should outlaw the activities. So. These days, fewer people are smoking, but people are allowed to smoke. Let’s restrict smoking. Fewer people are drinking alcohol. Let’s go back to prohibition.

    First of all, gays might have rights but they are not equal rights. Why should gay couples be required to “jump through hoops” that non-gay couples are not obligated to jump through to get their “needs” met?

    Denying lesbians and gay men the right to marry denies them simple, basic dignity and has serious practical costs as well. Among the practical consequences unique to marriage are the rights to:

    · visit a partner or a partner's child in a hospital;
    · inherit from your partner if she or he doesn't have a valid will;
    · obtain joint health, home and auto insurance policies;
    · enter joint rental agreements;
    · make medical decisions on a partner's behalf in event of illness;
    · take bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or a partner's child;
    · choose a final resting place for a deceased partner;
    · obtain wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
    · get an equitable division of property in a divorce;
    · have joint child custody, visitation, adoption and foster care;
    · determine child custody and support in a divorce;
    · have a spouse covered under Social Security and Medicare;
    · file joint tax returns;
    · obtain veterans' discounts on medical care, education and home loans;
    · apply for immigration and residency for partners from other countries; and
    · obtain domestic violence protective orders.

    http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/11845res19980630.html

    One might argue that gays do have some of these rights, if the gay couples contact lawyers and/or sign a bunch of legal documents (not required of married couples) but I think that gay couples should not be obligated to go through the extra work.

    Also see:

    http://hrw.org/backgrounder/lgbt/civil-marriage.htm
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  10. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    Ahhh...You've drunk too deeply of the kool-aid. Since same-gender couples were allowed to marry in Massachussetts, no straight person woke up gay after the first same-gender couple married...the world did not come to an end, and life went on as usual.

    There has been no demonstrable harm caused, either to those same-gender couples who have married nor to society at large. There has been no demonstrable harm to the children of these families. Get over it...Your feeble arguments are baseless and rooted in your own fears and doubts about your own sexuality.

    Come to think of it though, if some of these morons woke up gay, it would effectively keep them from polluting the rest of the gene pool.
     

Share This Page