Senate Scuttles Gay Marriage Amendment (Two no-shows. Care to guess?)

AP/ Yahoo ^ | 7/14/04 | David Espo

[proud American in Canada]

"once these marriages are performed, and the SCOTUS tosses the federal defense of marriage act - there will be no way to undo it."

That's exactly right.

Great post, btw.

[oceanview]

the situation in the public schools is going to get much worse when gay marriage is legalized. much worse. the tolerance that we have now, will morph into acceptance, and advocacy will soon follow.

we already have, at least amongst white americans, imploding rates of marriage and imploding birth rates and family formation. this will only accelerate that.

[George W. Bush]

I just heard on the radio that Collins, Snowe, McCain and Hagel were the Republicans that voted against.

Your radio must be broken.

Hagel & Nelson (D) of Nebr. both voted to continue the debate.

They know their voters quite well.

On some issues, conservatives may have some cause to question them. But we should be so lucky that all R's and D's voted toward the conservative position as often as they do. On the most important bills, they're both voting on the conservative side pretty consistently.

We've got plenty of RINO's and Lefties in the Senate to dump before we need to knock them off.

[mudblood]

"government out of the marriage business..."

Totally agree. I've been saying that for years.

[El Gato]

Of course, this doesn't give anyone license to marry gays illegally, where it is against state law.

The courts will likely interpret the defeat of the amendment as carte blance to rule that banning homosexual marriage, or even not according it the same benefits and priveleges as hetrosexual marriage, is a violation of equal protection, and thus unconsitutional. It's not, gays can marry, just not other gays of the same sex.

[handy]

Eddie could marry Bobby, or Susie, and it was all the same

Or Eddie could marry Bobby, and Susie, as well as their pet dog.

[Texas Federalist]

Congress cannot remove "federal" appellate jurisdiction. It can only constrain the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (which would have the effect of making the circuit court the "court of last resort" setting the binding precedents for each district).

Actually, Congress has the ability to remove circuit court jurisdiction or disband the Circuit Courts altogether. The Circuit Courts do not exist but for a Congressional mandate establishing them. See U.S. Const. Art. III, Sec. 1.

[CedarDave]

Good. This is one of the stupidest amendments ever proposed.

Agree, also. States should have the say on this EXCEPT that states not permitting gay marriage should NOT be required to accept and recognize homosexual marriages in States that do allow such marriage.

Another stupid amendment previously proposed, IMO, was flag burning. I believe that it is a form of free speech, even though disrespectful. Flag burning is done only to get attention by some radical group or individual, and local laws on disturbing the peace or inciting a riot can be used instead of a constitutional amendment.

[fooman]

....It only directly affects those who are gay....

Unitl your health insurance and taxes go up to pay for people who have 5 times as many partners as heteros.

And until your kid becomes one and you have no grand kids, or your is taken away by the state for gay adoption...

[BureaucratusMaximus]

I don't see what marriage has to do with the Gov't and/or the Constitution.

The first principle of the State is to promote the common good. Since all members of society pass through the institution of the family, the State has a duty to promote the health of families and marriage.

Sure you don't want to rethink that? You may want to brush up on some history my FRiend...the role of the "state" in America (as it is plainly written in the Constitution) is much, much less intrusive and have less "duties" than you think.

As for the common good...see tagline.

[Aquinasfan]

Only justification for the State is to protect rights. The common good is an empty concept altogether.

What rights would those be?

[Texas Federalist]

Because the primary duty of the State is to promote the common good.

The primary duty of the State is to protect individual liberty.

[Ignatius J Reilly]

"Hey, how about we get all Gov't OUT of the marriage business"

BRAVO - I agree completely

"I was extremely annoyed that I had to get a liscense or permission from some Gov't stooge to get married"

Of course you didn't have to get the government endorsed license if you didn't want to, but then you would not be entitled to the legal benefits of marriage (medical decision making, employee spouse benefits etc.)

[oceanview]

I wonder how the IRS will craft the 1040 forms for polygamy? is it married filing jointly, or do we need some new classifications?

[johnmorris886]

IN any case, as much of a scoundrel Byrd is, he needs to be thanked for doing what was right on this issue.

[OXENinFLA]

Durbin up now...........................tell us how wrong it was to bring this amendment up and what a waste of time it was....

[B Knotts]

States should have the say on this EXCEPT that states not permitting gay marriage should NOT be required to accept and recognize homosexual marriages in States that do allow such marriage.

Duh.

Of course they should not.

But they will, when the federal courts get their hands on it.

This amendment is the one way to stop it.

[Aquinasfan]

the situation in the public schools is going to get much worse when gay marriage is legalized. much worse. the tolerance that we have now, will morph into acceptance, and advocacy will soon follow.

True. Which is one of many reasons why we're homeschooling. God save the children.

we already have, at least amongst white americans, imploding rates of marriage and imploding birth rates and family formation. this will only accelerate that.

This has been the experience in Sweden.

[longtermmemmory]

and Nevil Chamberlin thought he could talk to Mr. Hilter (and his homosexual aids)

[Zack Nguyen]

It only directly affects those who are gay.

I would disagree. I think the definition of marriage, as government defines it, strongly impacts everyone, because it concerns adoption, public schools, and the general cultural force of government.