PING!
BTW, Check Out My New News Blog!
PS I am looking for news stories, correspondents and blog advice.
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.
<< Create a caucus within a party instead of a new party. >>
Pragmatic way to go. And, for just one example -- I'm a fierce tooth and nails defender of America's Founding Law [And I guess that makes me either a Constitutionalist or a Libertarian -- or both] -- who is a Republican.
And FReeRepublic probably qualifies as such a caucus?
I would also have to feel sympathetic towards them, too. Brainwashed women who believe a manipulative man don't inspire my understanding, just my pity.
Out there in the cities, or in suburbia, a lot of people, liberal, conservative, and mushy middle, know polygamist people.
Ok, substitute "polygamist" for "homosexual" in my response, but even if there are only 1% of people in the US who are homosexual, there are a FAR fewer number that are polygamist. And you know it, too.
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?
It's true, another set of people's living situation does not affect my own. And yes, I do question their right to state sanction for that relationship, just as the religious conservatives do for gay relationships. The difference is, there are a LOT more people willing to grant so-called "marital" rights to a homosexual couple than would grant them to a polygamist group. I guess that's just the tyranny of the emerging majority on this issue.
Look, the difference here is that you think that homosexuals and polygamists are sick, misguided individuals. For me, its just the polygamists, when we're talking about only the two groups. Conservatives need to deal with the fact that there are a lot of folks in the mushy middle, and at least a sizable minority of us over on the conservative side, who feel the same way.
Your opinion is therefore based on a bigoted notion of the persons whom you impose your views on.
My opinion is based on the only instance of polygamists I've seen, which is on websites that they themselves put up. If I had an opportunity to know some polygamists personally, I might have a different opinion, but I doubt it.
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.
The problem is that you think that you're in the clear majority. It might be true in your town, or your workplace, or your social group, or in your church. But its not the way things are in the nation as a whole. The courts have dealt with the fact that, as a society, learned people have been moving away from the model of homosexuality as a combination of sin and mental illness.
Like it or not, that explains today's vote. If the same vote had happened even ten years earlier, it would have gone the other way.
FReeRepublic is an excellent idea.
Social Conservatives or Constructionist Conservatives would be the focus, imo. I'd join either of those.
Force the party to negotiate with the caucus.
I never asserted that homosexuality was genetic. I suspect that there are possible reasons it could be, but even if it were revealed to be a fully free choice of individuals, there is enough support for it to allow that choice in our society. Normally heterosexual people can make a free choice to commit to celebacy for a religious vocation, and they are allowed to do so, even though a few folks make jokes about it, and otherwise disrespect it.
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.
How do you explain all the homosexuals who emerged during the periods of time that homosexuality was strongly discouraged? Unlike you, I don't believe that "permission" is a cause of homosexuality. Just because a permissive society leads to early experimentation with heterosexual behavior, which a teen might well be predisposed to (remember being sixteen?), I feel that no amount of "permission" will make a young person attracted to a member of the same sex.
this is exactly what the gay community wants, it can only help to swell their ranks
Ah, the "recruitment" theory of homosexuality. I'd venture to guess that more women are "recruited" into being lesbians by sexual abuse from older males in their lives, than are swayed by lesbians.
it only sounds like hyperbole to people who have a short term view of the situation.
Well, deal with the fact that, to the mushy middle, it sounds exactly like hyperbole, since they don't come at the issue from the same place you do.
Again, I'm not sure what to believe. If I had the materials in my own hands, or looked at websites put together by the people promoting the concepts, it would be easier to evaluate them.
And if the vote was 50-48, they were the only Senators to skip out.
Yes, they will march into court. Nothing can stop people from filing lawsuits on whatever they wish. They had better have a compelling reason, or risk not getting what they want.
they will win those adoption cases. that will effectively be the "affirmative action" program for them - leveling the playing field for gays, since their marriages cannot directly produce children. the current judiciary will hand that to them also. it will take time, but they are patient.
Coulda said the same thing about buttfvcking in Texas a coupla years ago, but now that the Supreme Court has (shall we say) 'had their way' with Texas law, that's no longer true.
That's why we need a Constitutional Amendment - it's the only way to rein in a Court run amok.
Gay Marriage Roll Call Vote
The 50-48 roll call by which the Senate blocked a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Supporters of the amendment fell 12 votes short of the 60 they needed to advance the bill.
On this vote, a "yes" vote was a vote to advance the measure and a "no" vote was a vote to stop it.
Voting "yes" were 3 Democrats and 45 Republicans.
Voting "no" were 43 Democrats, 6 Republicans and 1 Independent.
X denotes those not voting.
Democrats Yes
Byrd, W.Va.; Miller, Ga.; Nelson, Neb.
Democrats No
Akaka, Hawaii; Baucus, Mont.; Bayh, Ind.; Biden, Del.; Bingaman, N.M.; Boxer, Calif.; Breaux, La.; Cantwell, Wash.; Carper, Del.; Clinton, N.Y.; Conrad, N.D.; Corzine, N.J.; Daschle, S.D.; Dayton, Minn.; Dodd, Conn.; Dorgan, N.D.; Durbin, Ill.; Feingold, Wis.; Feinstein, Calif.; Graham, Fla.; Harkin, Iowa; Hollings, S.C.; Inouye, Hawaii; Johnson, S.D.; Kennedy, Mass.; Kohl, Wis.; Landrieu, La.; Lautenberg, N.J.; Leahy, Vt.; Levin, Mich.; Lieberman, Conn.; Lincoln, Ark.; Mikulski, Md.; Murray, Wash.; Nelson, Fla.; Pryor, Ark.; Reed, R.I.; Reid, Nev.; Rockefeller, W.Va.; Sarbanes, Md.; Schumer, N.Y.; Stabenow, Mich.; Wyden, Ore.
Democrats Not Voting
Edwards, N.C.; Kerry, Mass.
Republicans Yes
Alexander, Tenn.; Allard, Colo.; Allen, Va.; Bennett, Utah; Bond, Mo.; Brownback, Kan.; Bunning, Ky.; Burns, Mont.; Chambliss, Ga.; Cochran, Miss.; Coleman, Minn.; Cornyn, Texas; Craig, Idaho; Crapo, Idaho; DeWine, Ohio; Dole, N.C.; Domenici, N.M.; Ensign, Nev.; Enzi, Wyo.; Fitzgerald, Ill.; Frist, Tenn.; Graham, S.C.; Grassley, Iowa; Gregg, N.H.; Hagel, Neb.; Hatch, Utah; Hutchison, Texas; Inhofe, Okla.; Kyl, Ariz.; Lott, Miss.; Lugar, Ind.; McConnell, Ky.; Murkowski, Alaska; Nickles, Okla.; Roberts, Kan.; Santorum, Pa.; Sessions, Ala.; Shelby, Ala.; Smith, Ore.; Specter, Pa.; Stevens, Alaska; Talent, Mo.; Thomas, Wyo.; Voinovich, Ohio; Warner, Va.
Republicans No
Campbell, Colo.; Chafee, R.I.; Collins, Maine; McCain, Ariz.; Snowe, Maine; Sununu, N.H.
Others No
Jeffords, Vt.
The Republicans couldn't even get rid of the stupid low-flow toilet regulations. Do you really believe they have the guts to pass any legislation with real weight to it? It has been mostly downhill since welfare reform was passed, and even that was watered down by the idiotocracy in the Senate.
What for?
The candidates would be the same!
What we NEED is for everyone who thinks like us to VOTE!
Oh yeah! We need to have BUNCHES of parties liike those shining examples of Dimocracy, Canada, France, Germany,....(Shall I go on?)
</sarcasm>
BTW, Check Out My New News Blog!
PS I am looking for news stories, correspondents and blog advice.
Homosexual Agenda Etc - I realize I pung you all to this thread, but check out Gelato's post #438 and read the original Gay Rights Platform. And then tell other people about it.
Again, they are already there. Only Florida does not allow adoption by gays, and two states (oddly enough, Utah is one) that allows adoption by single people who are homosexual.
I guess it was all those gay couples who decided to adopt HIV positive babies back in the '80s and '90s that turned the tide on that issue.
To salvage a little good news from this, it's essential that everyone know who voted against it;
In addition to the usual suspects, a small handful of desperate Southern Dimocrats voted "Nay," including SC's Hollings, both Lousiana (not a typo) Senators, and both Senators from Arkansas.
Good. The enemies are identified. There is much work to be done. I don't mind working. Do you?
I guess if you ever have children you won't mind when they're taught in school that if they've ever had a "gay" thought that they ARE "gay", can't change, and the nice "gay" counsellor will assist them in "coming out" and learning the ropes of "gay" sex.
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.