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.
I concur in certain respects: marriage is intended to be a dim reflection of the union between Christ and His Church (which makes the recognition of homosexual unions even more distasteful, imho), so it definitely has distinctly Christian qualities. Those distinctly New Testament qualities are vital for the believer, but not essential for this debate.
<< We need a new political party. >>
We do.
A Declaration and War of Independence Party;
A Restore our beloved FRaternal Republic Party.
[Lead on, McDuff!]
As opposed to arrogant, power mad judges telling the voters to go to hell. That's much nicer.
Agreed, the MA SJC has indeed gotten a lot of people upset. If there were a fair press, that might likely be an even greater number. But the whole thing is being framed by the liberal media as a civil rights issue. The people who are today's editors just salivate over a chance to be the equivalent of those who reported on black civil rights in the 60's.
I'm just trying to interpret the way the mushy middle feels about this. Right now, conservatives have enough strength to get across a "this could happen in your back yard" approach to the gay marriage issue, and elect more Republicans, but it's not enough to get a full FMA here and now. Defeat some Rats out in the South and the farm country, and maybe next year, the vote will be different.
Overreach on mean-spiritedness, and risk having a Rat Congress and Rat President dealing with the issue. The President has played this issue well, it was Senator Frist who provided today's victory headlines in the gay-sympathetic liberal media.
It's good to see you! You've missed a good one, but you can go back and read the posts. I've missed your perspective on the issue. Nice thing about this thread, no name calling going on, truly a great thing.
That's still not a measurement of how passionate that 50%+ is about it.
And a majority isn't ENOUGH for an Amendment. The framers made it delberately painfully difficult to amend the Constitution. You'd better have 75%+ of the country opposing something with 50%+ of that really passionate about it to get an amendment to block that. You don't have that now for FMA, and NEVER will.
And it depends on the precise details of the wording of the question.
Do a poll asking if women should have the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, and you'll have 50%+ of the country supporting abortion.
Do a poll asking if women should be allowed to kill their unborn children and you'll have 50%+ of the country opposing abortion.
Again, it depends on when the question was asked. There was a sharp spike (in MA) against gay marriage right after the SJC ruling, but it's subsided.
I'm sorry, I'm having trouble finding polls right now, since Google News search is clogged with stories about today's vote, but I didn't make up numbers. I fully acknowledge that in many states, such as Ohio and Missouri, the numbers have been running somewhat stronger against gay marriage, as the Legislatures in both states have taken up the agenda.
I've never said that the entire country was ready for gay marriage, just that it will find greater acceptance in some places than in others.
Please look at comment# 108.
You opined that government benefits were the real reason homosexuals want "gay" marriage. They have stated over and over again that their real aim is to destroy the very meaning of marriage and family. Best expressed in their own words:
[I know this is little bit long, but well worth the effort to read a few paragraphs.]
From LA Times of March 12, 2004
Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor who runs the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, recommends legalizing a wide variety of marriage alternatives, including polyamory, or group wedlock. An example could include a lesbian couple living with a sperm-donor father, or a network of men and women who share sexual relations.
One aim, she says, is to break the stranglehold that married heterosexual couples have on health benefits and legal rights. The other goal is to "push the parameters of sex, sexuality and family, and in the process transform the very fabric of society." ... [snip]
An excerpt from: In Their Own Words: The Homosexual Agenda:
"Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine (Dec/Jan 1994):
"A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution... The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake --and one that would perhaps benefit all of society--is to transform the notion of family entirely."
"Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us."
Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.
Crain writes: "...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn't deserve the position." (Washington Blade, August, 2003).
Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater "understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman." He notes: "The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness." (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)
Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said: "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. . We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality." (partially quoted in "Beyond Gay Marriage," Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)
Evan Wolfson has stated: "Isn't having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? . marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. "(quoted in "What Marriage Is For," by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)
Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says: "Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I'd be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of 'till death do us part' and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play." (quoted in "Now Free To Marry, Canada's Gays Say, 'Do I?'" by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)
1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: "Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit." [Also among the demands was the elimination of all age of consent laws.]
<< The vote was a close 47-50 .... >>
Close to what?
Sixty-seven votes are required to pass a Constitutional Amendment and this one didn't come even far FRom passing -- let alone close!
And notwithstanding that their votes in support of our President's stand on today's issue would not have changed the effective outcome, the crucial core of "moderate" RINOs, whose reelection is always furiously supported by the Republican establishment [Witness President Bush's efforts this year on behalf of the execrable "republican," Arlen Specter] voted, as usual, solidly with the "Democrats."
Not to debate the issue of today's Constitutional Amendment, the case for ridding our party of the gang of effective "Democrats" it systemically cossets and succors -- for ridding our national political life of the criminal two-party cartel -- and/or for creating an absolutely new republican party -- one absolutely dedicated to the preservation of our beloved FRaternal Republic -- is a strong one indeed!
Best ones -- Brian
Just heard of a poll where 70% stated that gay marriage should not be a campaign issue this Fall, and only 9% said that it should be a main issue of the Fall campaigns.
I think the problem here is that you've got the minority who really passionately care about the FMA seeing the polls where you get 50%+ opposed to gay marriage, and mistakenly assume that 50%+ is just like them, since they have a skewed notion of the views of the country as a whole, since everyone in their church, family, etc. happens to feel the same way as they do.
#####And a majority isn't ENOUGH for an Amendment. The framers made it delberately painfully difficult to amend the Constitution#####
That was their intention, but they never envisioned a future in which imperialistic judges would take it upon themselves to amend the Constitution by decree.
For opponents of gay "marriage" to amend the Constitution, it would take a vote of two-thirds of both houses of Congress, and then ratification by the elected legislatures of three-fourths of the states. To accomplish that would require the support of a very large majority of the American people.
But for supporters of gay "marriage" to amend the Constitution, all they'll need is nine judges: The four Massachusetts judges who imposed gay "marriage" there and five U.S. Supreme Court justices to force it on the entire nation. They won't need a huge majority of the public, or even a majority at all. Just a modest sized minority in key places will be enough to secure the two judicial fiats needed to add a "right to gay marriage" to the Constitution by decree.
You'd prefer some 20-party parliamentary circus like most of the rest of the world?
Our system pretty deliberately is designed for two main parties. A third-party vote will ALWAYS be a wasted vote.
If the Fundivangelists create a third party, the Dems are going to win every election in the US till the end of time.
Excellent points, puroresu - as usual.
I'm gone for 8 hours and look what happens. It's actually been full steam ahead with the culture war lately. And as sad as it is (to me), I can't spend 8-10 hours a day on my computer.
The real issue is going to be the terrorist attack just prior to the election, and who America wants to be the President opening the next can of whupass.
You've made a good point, there are those who are very passionate against gay marriage, and there are just those who have been temporarily taken surprise by the sudden emergence of the issue, and are still uncomfortable.
I think the President has dealt with the issue sufficiently, the mushy middle does NOT want him getting in their faces about this. I agree with an editorial writer I read last week who said that in a Bush-Kerry debate, whoever says the word "gay" first, loses the debate.
Guess that's why we have to have Ralphie there! If he makes Bush and Kerry look like two peas in a pod (one on the left of the pod, and one on the right!), then he siphons liberal votes from Kerry for those who are passionately FOR gay marriage.
I have to take off now, but thanks all for a rousing debate!
You said any judge who would overturn anti-polygamy laws should be removed. Why aren't you calling for impeachment for the judges who turned the law on its head in Massachusetts?
Don't you see that, just as the MA court turned the law on its head, any other judge could do the same with regards to polygamy? Unless these revisionist judges are removed, they will be free to make any similar ruling.
Since impeachment doesn't appear to be happening, we must explicitly take marriage-defining power out of the court's hands. THAT is the point of the marriage amendment!
most surveys I've seen are about 30% in favor of full gay marriage
"Will of the majority," indeed!
It would take a LOT to convince a Utah appeals court of the application of Lawrence vs. Texas to the condition of polygamy
The lower courts don't matter. Once the case reaches the Supreme Court, polygamy laws will have to be overturned, consistent with Lawrence--unless the court wants to rescind that recent decision, which they will not do, or admit its contradiction. Justice Scalia's dissent in Lawrence said as much.
The polygamists are a tiny fringe group that really does want to radically redefine marriage in America
Look at what you are saying. Polygamy has been practiced historically, biblically, and is currently widely practiced throughout the world. Gay marriage never has. Even the gay-friendly Greeks never created same-sex marriage.
I agree polygamy redefines marriage, but not so radically as homosexual marriage, which has never existed prior to modern times. If you are against radically redefining marriage, you would be on the side of those of us who want to keep it between only one man and one woman.
And the notion that polygamy shouldn't be legalized because it's "only a tiny fringe" isn't a valid argument--and, meaning no offense, betrays a naive approach on your part to the issue.
You are most likely correct, I just decided that it wouldn't hurt to overguestimate for the purpose of the topic...which was to make the point that those pushing hardest for Gay "marriage" have no interest in it, just the destruction of society so they can have free reign.
God Bless
<< Our system pretty deliberately is designed for two main parties. >>
No it is not.
What you call "our system" is the product of the two main parties conspiring over a hundred years ago to create and subsequently, before and ahead of every other consideration, maintain a cartel so insidiously and criminally all powerful that had it been formed between Ford and General Motors or between United and American all of its key players would have served out the rest of their natural lives in prison.
[Although, of course, once the mobbed-up corporatists who run the General and Ford and United and American et al cottoned on to and began to finance the political cartel it obliged them by making their criminal contortions "the law" -- and to Hell with our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights -- and Rule of Law!]
Blessings -- Brian
BUMPping
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.