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.

[babyface00]

I agree with what you wrote. However, I was (or at least intended) to express why there was opposition to gay marriage or, more specifically, why government involvement in marriage makes changing the definition problemmatic.

The motives on the other (pro-gay marriage) side may be (and obviously are) very different.

[wita]

I agree completely, We should have stopped at the first ten, but as amendments go, this one, like the flag desecration one, are not sound reasons for amending what the dems like to call a living document.

[fooman]

Good point. We reap what we sow....

[M. Dodge Thomas]

It is already too late. My 24 y/o staunchly Republican, Bush supporting, Rep. precinct chairperson niece and her 22 y/o staunchly Republican, poll working brother proclaimed to the whole family on Thanksgiving that they could care less if two guys or two women get married.

Well, that's kinda' the issue here: demographically the trends are running pretty strongly against the prohibitionists; you can take a stand on moral or pragmatic grounds if you wish too, but with each passing year in more and more areas of the country it would be a issue that reduces the attractiveness of Republican candidates in the general election and tends to split the party in the meantime.

This is the problem with such litmus tests; observers who want to RINO much of the next generation of leadership out of the party may eventually find that it's they who are marginalized.

IMO we are pretty clearly headed toward a system of "dual" marriage, on the legal level it's going almost impossible - whatever politicians attempting to evade the issue may say - to address this problem on a "States-Rights" basis, it's just too complicated to live with a situation where fundamental legal arrangements are subject to radical change when you change your residence. For example even in states where there was strong opposition to "gay marriage" or equivalent partnership arrangements there would be strong economic disincentives to create more restrictive laws, for example many large employers will be reluctant to site or expand headquarters operations to states where employee lose rights granted under less restrictive law elsewhere.

So what you are left with if you oppose such unions is right to hold a second ceremony reaffirming your conviction that marriage should be possible only between a man and a woman, held before a voluntary association of like minded men and women, and to restrict your associations to the extent you desire to the company of people who agree with you.

This of course will not satisfy opponents with either "moral" or pragmatic reasons to oppose such unions.

But if they are correct, opinion will reverse itself in time.

And if not (if this issue becomes no more important than the moral and pragmatic "problems" of "race-mixing" seem 50 years after the end of legal segregation) they will remain more politically effective on other issues on which thay have more leverage.

[Aquinasfan]

the common good is not a prerequisite for liberty

Implicit in the statement that the first principle of the State is preservation of individual liberties is that this represents the good for society.

[mudblood]

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

The US constitution is based on judeo-christian ideals, and french philosophy. Most of the founders were religious, though many were deists, which is sorta religious. It came into existence mainly from a wellspring of discontent over excessive government imposition into people's lives. And nowhere in the Constitution does it say that gays have special rights, nor that they lack rights. Same thing goes with people of various races, not to mention sexes - and yet our country has never failed to cough up people who were able to justify, through their religion, why these segments of society don't have various rights. In the case of gay/straight, there's not even obvious physical differences to justify discrimination. There's a reason why the founding fathers wrote the Constitution, rather than simply holding up the Bible as our country's highest legal document: the Constitution is for everyone and CAN BE CHANGED. Once its in the bible, it stays there, is immutable, etc. The Constitution can be amended as it becomes necessary. This last attempt at that simply didn't pass the muster.

[steve-b]

Not at all. The statement reflects a mature realization that society must fend for itself through the tools of example and persuasion.

[mudblood]

Me: "Discrimination based upon sexuality is not against the law"
You: "Yet. But it soon will be"


I personally believe that sexual discrimination should be completely legal. That is, if you don't like someone for being gay, you don't have to hire them. Why? Because being gay, at root, is an ACTION. Sure, you might be gay because you were born that way, but unless you act upon it openly then nobody will know. Being black/female/male/white is what you are and can't be helped (nor should it). Once you start making laws prohibiting discrimination for actions, you open the door for all kinds of nonsense.
Lets take religion, for example. Imagine having to put up with some idiot at work who, as part of their "religion", chooses to wear a shirt to their customer service job reading "I hate you and I wish you were on fire." Because the Constitution doesn't involve itself in the establishment of religion, or legitimization of religion (this is a religion, that isn't, etc.), any law by the government protecting people from religious discrimination would have to protect the idiot at work and his stupid shirt.

[steve-b]

Similarly, the right to life logically precedes the right to exercise personal liberties. Only living people can exercise their liberties.

This exact argument (that "you don't have rights if your're dead") is advanced by gun-grabbers all the time. If it's fallacious when they advance it (and I'm sure it will be generally recognized here that it is), it is equally fallacious when you advance it.

Not that this is surprising, as both sources are veritable wellsprings of spurious argument.

[steve-b]

From a strictly logical standpoint, the protection of individual liberties cannot be the first principle of the State because a prior principle is assumed, that the protection of liberties is the good for society.

As I noted earlier, the protection of liberties is the higher principle, because it is a prerequisite for creating the environment in which society can pursue its own good through its legitimate powers (example and persuasion).

The fundamental difference is that libertarians seek equitable opportunity for virtue, as opposed to moralistic statists who seek to guarantee it equitable outcome.

[M. Dodge Thomas]

"any law by the government protecting people from religious discrimination would have to protect the idiot at work and his stupid shirt."

Federal law (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) prohibits religious discrimination in employment, and still allows an employer to prevent an employee from wearing an offensive tee-shirt.

There are gray areas, which is why these issues sometimes get litigated, but the tee-shirt in this example is not one of them, or even close.

[Texas Federalist]

The protection of life is the protection of a personal liberty, so is the common defense.

[mudblood]

"tee-shirt in this example is not one of them, or even close."

I'm no lawyer. This is good news though. My point was mainly to show the burden of anti-discrimination laws for employers. If they can protect one action (religion) they can protect others (homosexuality). I think the government should stick to the following: age, sex, race.

[M. Dodge Thomas]

If they can protect one action (religion) they can protect others (homosexuality). I think the government should stick to the following: age, sex, race.


It's a tough one, and I don't think there is any perfect solution - such laws cut both ways, and opinion of the results will often reflect whose ox is getting gored at the moment.

For instance in the case of the conflict you note above AD laws provide at least some protection to individuals who disagree with an employer's policy on religious grounds.

Generally an employer can compel you to agree to abide with any legal company policy as a condition of employment - and does not have to accept an announcement that "I think that this policy is idiotic and immoral, but I'll do it anyway" as your response.

But the law carves out some exceptions for religious belief as long as it does not interfere with effective job performance.

One recent example is the AT&T Broadband employee who refused on principle to sign a "diversity policy" which covered homosexuals and was fired despite the fact that he stated that he would not discriminate against anyone and had received excellent performance evaluations. A Federal court ruled in his favor on grounds of religious discrimination and he was awarded $140,000 in damages.

http://news.christiansunite.com/Religion_News/religion00898.shtml

I disagree with Buonanno's position, and I understand why AT&T took the stand they did. (Largely, to inoculate themselves against the possibility that they would be sued because of discrimination by their employees; perhaps Buonanno is the rare individual who can completely divorce his opinions from his actions – but many of us aren't.)

But I'm also very uneasy with the prospect of his losing his job despite excellent performance ratings, especially as it appears that his opinion only became an issue when he was asked to sign off on the diversity policy, and I find myself agreeing with the court.

Perhaps is a perfect world we would look exclusively at individual job performance (including refraining from discrimination in the workplace irrespective of opinion of such policies if that's a legal requirement of the job).

In this one we pretty much have to accept the messy compromise of attempting to find a practical balance between competing goods.

[YOUGOTIT]

As an example. Bob Graham and Bill Nelson would not be the senators from Florida. The Senators would be conservative Republicans. And they would be responsible to the people of Florida - as was intended by the Constitution.

[mudblood]

"In this one we pretty much have to accept the messy compromise of attempting to find a practical balance between competing goods."

Excellent post. That's one of the reasons why the backlash against "activist judges" scares me a little: I'd like "good sense" to win the day in some of these messy situations, at least in court.
In the case of AT&T, I don't think they actually needed anyone to sign a diversity form - but they listened to their blood-sucking lawyers and did it anyway. They were never in any legal trouble, but the lawyers got ahold of Director Such-n-such and convinced him that it was needed.

[Eastbound]

"bwahahahahaha does he ever vote??"

Yes, he votes for the occasional pay raise, but he has to carry a 'Tourist Gide to DC' to find the Senate Building.

You Are Here: X
To get to the Senate, go to Y, turn left and go to Z
Once inside, follow the stench to get to the Democrat section.

[gdc61]

The Constitution must be protected at all costs, agreed.

"The remedy for judicial activism is impeachment"... in whose world? with Arlen Specter stepping into the chair of the SJC.
"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".... excuse me? an overwhelming majority oppose same sex unions. we are being forced to accept it AND pay for it.
no matter how hard anyone tries, you can't tell me homos portray family values let alone are equal to OR deserving of equal rights as compared to minorities or married couples.
They have the same rights as me. I can shack up with whom I please or marry whomever I choose from the opposite sex. You think the government should place its stamp of approval on gay marriage? and say "protect the constitution" in one paragraph,wow. whats to stop the Mormons from asking for bigamy rights? what if I want to marry my dog or little sister? there is a reason they lump sodomy in with beastiality and pedophilia. Sodomy rights? I don't think so.

[SendShaqtoIraq]

I disagree. This does not make them responsible to the people, as the people have NO recourse to get rid of them.

[Milligan]

On Fox News, John Edwards had a nerve to complain about the dead lock bill. "Its the Republicans fault!" Kerry and Edwards were no shows!