Senate Scuttles Gar Marriage Amendment

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by 007, Jul 14, 2004.

  1. 007
    Offline

    007 Charter Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    38,559
    Thanks Received:
    7,912
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +12,138
    Senate Scuttles Gay Marriage Amendment




    By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent

    WASHINGTON - The Senate dealt an election-year defeat Wednesday to a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, rejecting pleas from President Bush (news - web sites) and fellow conservatives that the measure was needed to safeguard an institution that has flourished for thousands of years.


    The vote was 48-50, 12 short of the 60 needed to keep the measure alive. Six Republicans joined dozens of Democrats in sealing the amendment's fate.


    "I would argue that the future of our country hangs in the balance because the future of marriage hangs in the balance," said Sen. Rick Santorum, a leader in the fight to approve the measure. "Isn't that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?"


    But Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle said there was no "urgent need" to amend the Constitution. "Marriage is a sacred union between men and women. That is what the vast majority of Americans believe. It's what virtually all South Dakotans believe. It's what I believe."


    "In South Dakota, we've never had a single same sex marriage and we won't have any," he said. "It's prohibited by South Dakota law as it is now in 38 other states. There is no confusion. There is no ambiguity."


    Supporters conceded in advance they would fail to win the support needed to advance the measure, and vowed to renew their efforts.


    "I don't think it's going away after this vote," Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said Tuesday on the eve of the test vote. "I think the issue will remain alive," he added.


    Whatever its future in Congress, there also were signs that supporters of the amendment intended to use it in the campaign already unfolding.


    "The institution of marriage is under fire from extremist groups in Washington, politicians, even judges who have made it clear that they are willing to run over any state law defining marriage," Republican senatorial candidate John Thune says in a radio commercial airing in South Dakota. "They have done it in Massachusetts and they can do it here," adds Thune, who is challenging Daschle for his seat.


    "Thune's ad suggests that some are using this amendment more to protect the Republican majority than to protect marriage," said Dan Pfeiffer, a spokesman for Daschle's campaign.


    At issue was an amendment providing that marriage within the United States "shall consist only of a man and a woman."


    A second sentence said that neither the federal nor any state constitution "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." Some critics argue that the effect of that provision would be to ban civil unions, and its inclusion in the amendment complicated efforts by GOP leaders to gain support from wavering Republicans.


    Bush urged the Republican-controlled Congress last February to approve a constitutional amendment, saying it was needed to stop judges from changing the definition of the "most enduring human institution."


    Bush's fall rival, Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) of Massachusetts, opposes the amendment, as does his vice presidential running mate, Sen. John Edwards (news - web sites) of North Carolina. Both men skipped the vote.


    In all, 45 Republicans and three Democrats voted to keep the measure alive. Six Republicans joined 43 Democrats and one independent in opposition.


    The odds have never favored passage in the current Congress, in part because many Democrats oppose it, but also because numerous conservatives are hesitant to overrule state prerogatives on the issue.


    At the same time, Republican strategists contend the issue could present a difficult political choice to Democrats, who could be pulled in one direction by polls showing that a majority of voters oppose gay marriage, and pulled in the other by homosexual voters and social liberals who support it. An Associated Press-Ipsos poll taken in March showed about four in 10 support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and half oppose it.


    Democrats said that Bush and Republicans were using the issue to distract attention from the war in Iraq (news - web sites) and the economy.

    "The issue is not ripe. It is not needed. It's a waste of our time. We should be dealing with other issues," said Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut.

    But Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said a decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court had thrust the matter upon the Senate. The ruling opened the way for same sex marriages in the state, and Frist predicted the impact would eventually be far broader.

    "Same-sex marriage will be exported to all 50 states. The question is no longer whether the Constitution will be amended. The only question is who will amend it and how will it be amended," he added.

    He said the choice was "activist judges" on the one hand and lawmakers on the other.
     
  2. 007
    Offline

    007 Charter Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    38,559
    Thanks Received:
    7,912
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +12,138
    This will just piss people off more. Especially the ones that thought we didn't need one, when the fags start renewed efforts to get more weddings going in more states.

    I really didn't mind queers before. So long as they kept their sick, perverted, mentally ill behavior behind closed doors where it belongs, I didn't care what they did. But now... I'm really getting fed up with these sons a bitchin' faggots. What they're doing was NO WAY TO WIN ME OVER. It's only made me hate them, and I'd be willing to bet, I'm not the only one either.
     
  3. NewGuy
    Online

    NewGuy Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Pale rider and Big-D

    They make a great couple.
     
  4. 007
    Offline

    007 Charter Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    38,559
    Thanks Received:
    7,912
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +12,138
    Never figured a bible thumper for a queer lover...... go figure.

    New guy, you're looking more and more like a closet liberal.
     
  5. NewGuy
    Online

    NewGuy Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I just have the capacity to love.

    Something you lack.
     
  6. nycflasher
    Offline

    nycflasher Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    Messages:
    3,078
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    CT
    Ratings:
    +14
    Really, Pale.
    Get a life.
     
  7. lilcountriegal
    Offline

    lilcountriegal Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Messages:
    1,633
    Thanks Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Ratings:
    +59
    I actually agree with him.

    :dunno:

    He just puts it a bit more bluntly than I would :D
     
  8. NewGuy
    Online

    NewGuy Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Then I think anyone agreeing to these statements in bold is, quite bluntly, an idiot and a waste of flesh.
     
  9. lilcountriegal
    Offline

    lilcountriegal Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Messages:
    1,633
    Thanks Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Ratings:
    +59
    Look NG.. I just said that I agree with him, but not as bluntly. The idea he states that this is going to bring homosexuals ranting in the streets again over the gay marriage issue is fairly probable. The whole issue sickens me. Do I support gay marriage? No. Do I hate homosexuals? No. Do I get sick and tired of hearing one story after another popping up in the news about this lesbian actress getting married, or the lines to this courthouse are full of homosexuals, or there's a lawsuit here or there filed by such and such, hell yes. Would I go sofaras to bluntly state "I'm really getting fed up with these sons a bitchin' faggos"? No... because I dont choose to use that type of language. Do I agree with Pale Rider's idea? yes. even if I disagree how that idea is delivered.

    If because you dont agree with my opinion that I'm an "idiot and a waste of flesh" then so-be-it. Thankfully, your opinion of me means shit to me.
     
  10. phadras
    Offline

    phadras Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2004
    Messages:
    270
    Thanks Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +17
    pass.. It was an attempt by Repubs to "out" Dems who support gay/queer/lesbian marriage..... And attack the Dems in the election...
    Not that I mind the tactic but the amendment didn't have enough support by Repubs to pass.. Don't know that the amendment will ever pass 'cause the Dems now want this as a "state right's" issue.. Politics makes very strange bedfellows; Dems for states rights hehehehe.
    Here's a list of Repub's voting to cut off debate and scuttle the bill.
    Susan M. Collins (Maine), Olympia J. Snowe (Maine), John E. Sununu (N.H.), Lincoln D. Chafee (R-I.), Ben Nighthorse Campbell (Colo.) and John McCain (Ariz.). And some surprising Dems supported it... Zell Miller (Ga.), Ben Nelson (Neb.) and Robert C. Byrd (W.Va.).
     

Share This Page