Posted on 07/14/2004 9:50:28 AM PDT by 11th Earl of Mar
Edited on 07/14/2004 10:13:18 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
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.
"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.
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.
The rate of VD will go up too. Better make sure your girlfriend was never bi.
'doesn't affect me directly' right
I think there is a greater chance of triggering a constitutional convention than there is of ever getting 60 votes for this in the US Senate. A constitutional convention may be what we should be pushing for.
"They already have tolerance....benefits..."
The issue of benefits is perhaps the best argument against gay marriage that I've heard of. Its also one of the main reasons why I don't think government should be involved with marriage - too much involvement by the government in our personal lives. The catholic church example's good. I guess if the church gets tax money to do their work (Faith-based initiative, which I support btw) then they should have to give benefits if it is required by law. However, its diametrically opposed to their views, which creates a serious burden for them. I don't have a very good solution for this.
Its interesting that they hired the gay guy in the first place. Discrimination based upon sexuality is not against the law. So it seems to me that they've taken it upon themselves to provide for that gay persons' spouse. Perhaps if the guy comes to them and says, "I'm gay - give me benefits" they could just fire him? They could in Virginia. They can fire you in Virginia for your taste in movies.
Possibly Vulnerable Democrats on this issue (IMO):
Baucus (MT)
Bayh (IN)
Breaux (LA-Not running for reelection)
Conrad (ND)
Daschle (SD)
Dorgan (ND)
Graham (FL)
Hollings (SC-Not running for reelection)
Johnson (SD)
Landrieu (LA)
Lincoln (AR)
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor (AR)
Rockefeller (WV)
Stabenow (MI)
The amendment wasn't about gay marriage. It was about protecting the traditional definition of marriage. If most Americans don't care about this amendment, that's because they naively don't understand why it is needed.
Frame the question in the right way, and they will support the amendment.
Imagine this conversation:
Q. "The Federal Marriage Amendment would prohibit polygamy. Are you for or against it?"
A. "Isn't polygamy already illegal?"
Q. "Yes, but the courts are setting the precedent to overturn it. An amendment to the Constitution would eliminate that possibility. Do you favor this?"
A. "Well, if that's the only way to keep polygamy illegal, then I support the amendment."
why?
good post. dittos!
Does anyone have the text of the proposed amendment? Does it outlaw gay marriage entirely, and ban any government from recognizing same, or does it simply state that the US Constitution shall not be construed to contain the right to gay marriage? The second option would stop federal judges from creating the right, while leaving the issue to the several states.
"Senators who wanted the matter left to the states?"
It's interesting how the left plays both sides of the "states rights" argument- recall the Texas sodomy law debate? We on the right have been guilty of that as well, but with the gay marriage issue, we know there will be no such thing as an individual state's right to define marriage, given the inevitable invocation of the Full Faith and Credit clause combined with our activist SCOTUS.
The ammendment does not act to limit the actions of individuals, they can shack up and call it whatever they like.
By defining marriage to one man/one woman it limits the federal government (and judiciary) from extending federal recognition and benefits willy nilly to any couple that demands it.
Senate Joint Resolution 40
Thanks. I appreciate it.
NAYs ---50 (the bad guys)
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Breaux (D-LA)
Campbell (R-CO)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (D-FL)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCain (R-AZ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Sununu (R-NH)
Wyden (D-OR)
This is important because there are polygamist activists citing the Massachusetts ruling on gay marriage and Lawrence vs. Texas to argue for overturning polygamy laws.
There are other ways to solve this problem. A Constitutional Amendment was never the best idea.
Again the Senate has proven that they no longer support the American people. The anti-Americans in the US Senate remind one of the Imperial Senate of Rome - Anti-Country and self-preserving. The only way to fix the problem is the repeal the XVII Amendment to the Constitution and once again have the Senators appointed by the State Legislators, as the original Constitution called for. This is a club of elitist who think they are better that the people they serve and do not give a crap about the wishes of the American people.
REPEAL THE XVII AMENDMENT – Get some real Americans in the US Senate.
2004-01-13 Pro-Polygamists ponder 'Legalization' case News PRESS RELEASE
Old Orchard Beach, Maine --- Even though pro-polygamists usually argue for "de-criminalization" of anti-polygamy laws, one state attorney has taken the initiative to file a lawsuit to get polygamy "legalized" in Utah. The particular case involves no crime --- only a married man being denied a marriage license to legally marry a second wife.
[...]
The lawsuit asserts that, by denying the marriage license, the clerks violated the claimants' First Amendment right to practice their religion. According to the suit, "The sincere and deeply held religious major tenet of the beliefs of J. Bronson, D. Cook and G. Lee Cook are that the doctrine of plural marriage, i.e., a man having more than one wife, is ordained of God and is to be encouraged and practiced."
Mark Henkel, national polygamy advocate and founder of the Christian polygamy --- non-Mormon --- organization, TruthBearer.org ( www.TruthBearer.org ), was not surprised by the news. "We had known that some individual Utah Mormon polygamists were preparing to advance this 'legalization' route in the courts."
He notes that Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans specifically guarantee "de-criminalization" of polygamy, overturning all anti-polygamy laws for consenting adults. Henkel said, "The Utah attorney definitely has a big job ahead of him to pursue the 'legalization' route, though --- especially when combining that with the 'freedom of religion' argument."
[...]
Pro-Polygamy.com ™ Helping the Media & Information-gatherers by providing news, reports, and insights from the pro-polygamy view.
Providing for the common defense is part of protecting individual liberty, a term which does not limit itself to protection from domestic threats. "Providing for the common good" is a much much broader concept than is contemplated by our Constitution.
Had the "capitation tax" in the original Constitution not been mucked with, and had the government not unconstitutionally started taking money from one group to give to another, these things would not be an issue.
I have lots more thoughts on the issue, but I doubt that anyone would care to hear them.
Marriage is integrated into our civil laws, some state and some federal. How can gay-marriage be a state issue when there are federal implications?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.