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

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

[11th Earl of Mar]

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.

[apackof2]

I want a list.

I do too,where is one?

[Brian Allen]

<< If the [Constitutionialist Republicans] create a third party, the Dems are going to win every election in the US till the end of time. >>

Go tell that to our former president, Ronald Wilson Reagan, our "republican" Party's last Republican!

Yours is the "argument" of the moral-integrity compromised and of the appeasers.

[familyop]

LJ, this is what I found. Make sure that everyone sees it, please?

---

14-Jul
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 108^th Congress - 2^nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the SenateVote Summary

Question: On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to Consider S. J. Res. 40 )
Vote Number:	155	Vote Date:	July 14, 2004, 12:13 PM
Required For Majority:	3/5	Vote Result:	Cloture Motion Rejected

Vote Counts:	YEAs	48
	NAYs	50
	Not Voting	2

Vote Summary

By Senator Name

By Vote Position

By Home State

Alphabetical by Senator Name

Akaka (D-HI), Nay Alexander (R-TN), Yea Allard (R-CO), Yea Allen (R-VA), Yea Baucus (D-MT), Nay Bayh (D-IN), Nay Bennett (R-UT), Yea Biden (D-DE), Nay Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Bond (R-MO), Yea Boxer (D-CA), Nay Breaux (D-LA), Nay Brownback (R-KS), Yea Bunning (R-KY), Yea Burns (R-MT), Yea Byrd (D-WV), Yea Campbell (R-CO), Nay Cantwell (D-WA), Nay Carper (D-DE), Nay Chafee (R-RI), Nay Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Clinton (D-NY), Nay Cochran (R-MS), Yea Coleman (R-MN), Yea Collins (R-ME), Nay Conrad (D-ND), Nay Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Corzine (D-NJ), Nay Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea Daschle (D-SD), Nay Dayton (D-MN), Nay DeWine (R-OH), Yea Dodd (D-CT), Nay

Dole (R-NC), Yea Domenici (R-NM), Yea Dorgan (D-ND), Nay Durbin (D-IL), Nay Edwards (D-NC), Not Voting Ensign (R-NV), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea Feingold (D-WI), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Nay Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea Frist (R-TN), Yea Graham (D-FL), Nay Graham (R-SC), Yea Grassley (R-IA), Yea Gregg (R-NH), Yea Hagel (R-NE), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay Hatch (R-UT), Yea Hollings (D-SC), Nay Hutchison (R-TX), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea Inouye (D-HI), Nay Jeffords (I-VT), Nay Johnson (D-SD), Nay Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Not Voting Kohl (D-WI), Nay Kyl (R-AZ), Yea Landrieu (D-LA), Nay Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Leahy (D-VT), Nay Levin (D-MI), Nay Lieberman (D-CT), Nay Lincoln (D-AR), Nay

Lott (R-MS), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Nay McConnell (R-KY), Yea Mikulski (D-MD), Nay Miller (D-GA), Yea Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Murray (D-WA), Nay Nelson (D-FL), Nay Nelson (D-NE), Yea Nickles (R-OK), Yea Pryor (D-AR), Nay Reed (D-RI), Nay Reid (D-NV), Nay Roberts (R-KS), Yea Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay Santorum (R-PA), Yea Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Nay Sessions (R-AL), Yea Shelby (R-AL), Yea Smith (R-OR), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Nay Specter (R-PA), Yea Stabenow (D-MI), Nay Stevens (R-AK), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Nay Talent (R-MO), Yea Thomas (R-WY), Yea Voinovich (R-OH), Yea Warner (R-VA), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Nay

Vote Summary

By Senator Name

By Vote Position

By Home State

Grouped By Vote Position

YEAs ---48
Alexander (R-TN) Allard (R-CO) Allen (R-VA) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burns (R-MT) Byrd (D-WV) Chambliss (R-GA) Cochran (R-MS) Coleman (R-MN) Cornyn (R-TX) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) DeWine (R-OH)	Dole (R-NC) Domenici (R-NM) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Fitzgerald (R-IL) Frist (R-TN) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Kyl (R-AZ) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN)	McConnell (R-KY) Miller (D-GA) Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-NE) Nickles (R-OK) Roberts (R-KS) Santorum (R-PA) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-OR) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Talent (R-MO) Thomas (R-WY) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA)

NAYs ---50
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)

Not Voting - 2
Edwards (D-NC)	Kerry (D-MA)

Vote Summary

By Senator Name

By Vote Position

By Home State

Grouped by Home State

Alabama:	Sessions (R-AL), Yea	Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska:	Murkowski (R-AK), Yea	Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona:	Kyl (R-AZ), Yea	McCain (R-AZ), Nay
Arkansas:	Lincoln (D-AR), Nay	Pryor (D-AR), Nay
California:	Boxer (D-CA), Nay	Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Colorado:	Allard (R-CO), Yea	Campbell (R-CO), Nay
Connecticut:	Dodd (D-CT), Nay	Lieberman (D-CT), Nay
Delaware:	Biden (D-DE), Nay	Carper (D-DE), Nay
Florida:	Graham (D-FL), Nay	Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Georgia:	Chambliss (R-GA), Yea	Miller (D-GA), Yea
Hawaii:	Akaka (D-HI), Nay	Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho:	Craig (R-ID), Yea	Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Illinois:	Durbin (D-IL), Nay	Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
Indiana:	Bayh (D-IN), Nay	Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa:	Grassley (R-IA), Yea	Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas:	Brownback (R-KS), Yea	Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky:	Bunning (R-KY), Yea	McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana:	Breaux (D-LA), Nay	Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Maine:	Collins (R-ME), Nay	Snowe (R-ME), Nay
Maryland:	Mikulski (D-MD), Nay	Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts:	Kennedy (D-MA), Nay	Kerry (D-MA), Not Voting
Michigan:	Levin (D-MI), Nay	Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota:	Coleman (R-MN), Yea	Dayton (D-MN), Nay
Mississippi:	Cochran (R-MS), Yea	Lott (R-MS), Yea
Missouri:	Bond (R-MO), Yea	Talent (R-MO), Yea
Montana:	Baucus (D-MT), Nay	Burns (R-MT), Yea
Nebraska:	Hagel (R-NE), Yea	Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada:	Ensign (R-NV), Yea	Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Hampshire:	Gregg (R-NH), Yea	Sununu (R-NH), Nay
New Jersey:	Corzine (D-NJ), Nay	Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico:	Bingaman (D-NM), Nay	Domenici (R-NM), Yea
New York:	Clinton (D-NY), Nay	Schumer (D-NY), Nay
North Carolina:	Dole (R-NC), Yea	Edwards (D-NC), Not Voting
North Dakota:	Conrad (D-ND), Nay	Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Ohio:	DeWine (R-OH), Yea	Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Oklahoma:	Inhofe (R-OK), Yea	Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Oregon:	Smith (R-OR), Yea	Wyden (D-OR), Nay
Pennsylvania:	Santorum (R-PA), Yea	Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island:	Chafee (R-RI), Nay	Reed (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina:	Graham (R-SC), Yea	Hollings (D-SC), Nay
South Dakota:	Daschle (D-SD), Nay	Johnson (D-SD), Nay
Tennessee:	Alexander (R-TN), Yea	Frist (R-TN), Yea
Texas:	Cornyn (R-TX), Yea	Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah:	Bennett (R-UT), Yea	Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont:	Jeffords (I-VT), Nay	Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Virginia:	Allen (R-VA), Yea	Warner (R-VA), Yea
Washington:	Cantwell (D-WA), Nay	Murray (D-WA), Nay
West Virginia:	Byrd (D-WV), Yea	Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Wisconsin:	Feingold (D-WI), Nay	Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Wyoming:	Enzi (R-WY), Yea	Thomas (R-WY), Yea

[jwalsh07]

40 states have laws or constitutional amendments limiting marriage to one man and one woman. That comes out to 80% with several more in the process of doing so. But what do they know? Strategerist says there is not a consensus for an amendment to define marriage as that of one man and one woman.

[familyop]

Oh, and here's the link!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1171277/posts?page=383#383

[B4Ranch]

That's about as clear as anyone has ever said it!

[jwalsh07]

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.

Wrong again hunter. More than 40 states have made laws or amended their constitutions to defend marriage.

They have been duped by the "states rights" balogna into thinking that those laws and amendments are sufficient to keep the courts at bay.

They are in for one big surprise when SCOTUS uses equal protection to overturn their laws and constituional amendments.

And the totalitarian right who applaud judicial tyranny at every turn will once again applaud judicial tyranny.

[unspun]

So here you have millions of people denied what they perceive as rights for no constitutionally mandated reason.

Does the U.S. Constitution have any theological, philosophical, historical contexts and foundations, or did it come into existence out of nothing?

[little jeremiah]

(Thanks, familyop).

Homosexual Agenda etc - a lot of you have already been on this thread, and I just pinged the lot of you, but familyop just posted the list of Senators and how they voted. As expected.

Spectre voted yes, I didn't think he would. Well, he does have an election coming up.

[jwalsh07]

Would you like to guess why moderate Republicans like Voinovich and DeWine from Ohio voted Yea today?

Well , I'll tell you anyway.

In January Ohio passed the most sweeping DOMA law in the country banning both homosexual marriage and civil unions.

Do you suppose that Ohio a mere plurality to do that?

[Gelato]

Q.So, I suppose if you knew any polygamists, you would be apt to argue for their right to marry? Only if I felt some sort of empathy for them.

Ah! So that's it! You base your opposition to polygamists' "right" to marry on whether or not you know any.

You look around, and you see only monogamous marriages (you think) in your town, your workplace, your neighborhood, or your church. It's easy to get caught up in thinking that the rest of the world is pretty much like the people you know.

Out there in the cities, or in suburbia, a lot of people, liberal, conservative, and mushy middle, know polygamist people.

Are you so "mean spirited"--to use your term--that you would deny these harmless folks the right to marry whom they want? Don't you know, their marriage doesn't affect your marriage?

On the other hand, if I knew of a multiple arrangement where the people involved were otherwise seemingly intelligent, and really were operating out of free will, I might be open minded enough to accept them as friends. It might just be out of curiousity to see if they really were all OK with the arrangement, I just can't see how it might work in a practical manner!

The polygamists I've met are nice people. They made the decision to reject monogamy for their personal lives, in harmony with their personal religious beliefs.

You're deluding yourself if you paint them all in your mind as living in a man's "personal harem" with "subservient women." You really have no idea what you're talking about, since you haven't met any polygamists personally. Your opinion is therefore based on a bigoted notion of the persons whom you impose your views on.

Now, since you believe the courts should base their decision on polygamy according to your preconceived notions, what do you think will be the result when those notions are on trial? "Don't allow John to marry Sue and Mary, because they are social misfits." That's simply bigoted.

Denying marriage to polygamists based on bigotry is a sure recipe for the courts to make polygamy legal.

Instead, polygamists should be denied marriage based on the moral beliefs of the majority. But as you see, that legal standard was dismantled by the courts, in order to create homosexual marriage.

[B4Ranch]

People are slowly starting to wake up. They are beginning to see the UN for what it is...socialist and anti democracy. They are starting to see the Parties for what they are.....in colusion to defeat the Bill of Rights.

Both parties support the UN Charter stronger than they do the US Constitution. The EPA and ESA didn't drop out of the sky, nor did the anti-Patriot Act, nor NAFTA, nor Smart Growth, nor the World Bank, nor World anything.

If you think that these ideas are all from the Democrats, why do the Republicans support them so strongly?

[little jeremiah]

Got it! Did you see my post with quotes from what homosexual spokespeople themselves state as the reasons they want same sex marriage? They shamelessly admit they have no interest in normal family life or monogamy. They brazenly admit that their purpose is to promote homosexuality and to destroy the natural family and sexual morality.

[oceanview]

the problem with all of your posts is - you talk about everything in reference to adults, and assume that homosexuality is genetic.

of course, the availability of gay marriage isn't going to mean anything to a bona-fide heterosexual male aged 25. its children and youg teens entering puberty who will be at risk from this. because during the years they are forming their sexual identities, acceptance and advocacy of gay marriage will now be a legitimate part of the american culture. this is exactly what the gay community wants, it can only help to swell their ranks, and their political power.

it only sounds like hyperbole to people who have a short term view of the situation.

[oceanview]

internet legends? the attempts to introduce gay themed textbooks into the NYC schools some years ago was certainly not a legend.

[snopercod]

get it now? or do you approve of forced beliefs?

Absolutely not. The remedy for judicial activism is impeachment, not a constitutional amendment. People just don't want to be bothered with performing their civic duty. It's easier to bitch on fora like this.

The Constitution must be protected at all costs.

Nobody is forcing his or her beliefs on the people of the United States. Activist judges are trying to force taxpayers to pay for the expression of those beliefs.

Personally, I don't care if two men or women want to live together under the same roof. That's their right in a free country. When you get down to it, marriage is a division of labor and an economic convenience as much as anything else.

In the stone age, the men hunted and the women raised the children. For most of American history, men worked on the farm or in a factory, and the women raised the children. Thanks to the fruits of our form of government here in America, we have other options these days, moral or not.

If two men or women want to live together, I don't call it marriage, but I don't mind calling it a civil union.

I think the rights of people who chose that lifestyle should be protected under law just like "normal" couples. The law should provide for inheritance of assets for the survivor and the adopted children. The law should not give them special benifits.

When two men or women share a household for a lifetime, they should be able to pass their assets to their "spouse" regardless of sex.

Personally, I believe that homosexuality is immoral, but it is not the function of government to prevent people from doing immoral things.

[oceanview]

no, you are missing my point.

married gays will march into court, and argue that since their marriage doesn't offer the same opportunity for bearing children, they should receive special treatment to achieve parity. special treatment in the tax codes, special consideration for adoption (that will be the big one) - anything and everything to make their marriages on par with heterosexual ones.

[KQQL]

Grouped By Vote

Position YEAs ---48

Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)

Chambliss (R-GA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nickles (R-OK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

Byrd (D-WV)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-NE)

---

NAYs ---50 ----

Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
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)
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)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Campbell (R-CO)
Snowe (R-ME)
Sununu (R-NH)
McCain (R-AZ)
Chafee (R-RI)

---

Not Voting - 2

Edwards (D-NC)
Kerry (D-MA)

SOURCE:
http://www.senate.gov

[MikefromOhio]

Honestly, this was a non-issue for me. I didn't get my marriage license from the feds, I got it from the states. It is up to the states to sort this mess out.


I really honestly dont want the Feds involved in this issue. Glad it was debated, but it shouldnt be regulated by the Feds. The DOMA act is enough, it reaffirms that marriage is between a man and a woman.

As for the Gay Js, they should have voted. Now President Bush can bash both over the head for not at least voting on this proposal. He could say that they don't believe in voting for or against something that is controversial in an election year. Meanwhile, he can point to himself and say at least he took a stand, right or wrong. Edwards spoke but didnt even stick around to vote. what a loser...

[jwalsh07]

Personally, I believe that homosexuality is immoral, but it is not the function of government to prevent people from doing immoral things.

Nor is it the governments place to put the imprimatur on homosexuality but thats exactly what the courts are doing.