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.

[foreverfree]

I'm surprised Specter voted yea.

ff

[unspun]

Thanks for your comments

The US constitution is based on judeo-christian ideals, and french philosophy.

Well, you're half right (the first half). I suggest you read the works of James Madison on the same; also On Revolution, by Hannah Arendt. Who are you talking about, JJ Rousseau? No. And as for Deists, there may have been about a couple notable ones in the mix, and not the Adams cousins, Jefferson, Washington, or Henry. (And certainly neither were Sidney, nor Locke, who were cited by Adams and Jefferson as providing the basis for the founding of the USA.)

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.

The Constitution was held up as our highest legal document, because the Constitution lays out our governance, whereas the Bible is (and was regarded as) documentation of a higher, universal, and all saturating truth.

As you've pointed out, the Constitution proscribes ways of its being changed: i.e., by processes such as that begun with yesterday's vote -- not by judges elevating themselves to be the Ruling Tribunal of America.

Once its in [T]he [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.

Really? I saw a muster --well, for everyone but Kerry and Edwards. mb: at the signing of the Constitution, some rights, responsibilities, and standards were enumerated while others were regarded as self-evident and treated as implicit. One of these, clearly, was the meaning of "marriage" as being a sacred commitment between one man and one woman. You're right. That is immutable, in the Bible of those who signed the Constitution, "in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven."

[Aquinasfan]

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 final end of the State isn't the "protection of liberties," but the common good, since the protection of liberties is justified as being good for the individuals in society.

Your position is self-contradictory and incoherent, but I give up on trying to convince you of that fact.

moralistic statists who seek to guarantee it equitable outcome.

The State, then, exists to help man to temporal happiness the Church, to eternal. Of these two purposes the latter is more ultimate, man's greater good, while the former is not necessary for the acquisition of the latter. The dominating proximate purpose of man must be to earn his title to eternal salvation: for that, if needs be, he must rationally sacrifice his temporal happiness.

State and Church

Does that sound like "guaranteeing equitable outcome"?

[Aquinasfan]

This exact argument (that "you don't have rights if your're dead") is advanced by gun-grabbers all the time.

So dead people can exercise their rights?

The principle is correct, the application of the principle by the "gun-grabbers" is incorrect.

[YOUGOTIT]

The people elect the state representatives. The state representatives are more responsive to the people. They are local and respond to the people of their districts, unlike the present day Senators who think they are of royal blood and do not give a crap about what the people think. The people need to regain control of the selection of their Senators as it was before February 3, 1913 when the XVII amendment was ratified. So for 134 years Senators were selected by the representatives of the State from which they came - Article I, section 3 of the Constitution of the United States.

[Kerberos]

"Two no shows, care to guess who"

Why show up for a vote if you already know its a done deal?

[mudblood]

"Thanks for your comments..."

You are welcome: likewise.

French Philosophy as in, a government run by the people, for the people, etc. No aristocracy. You can't deny that this didn't come out of the French Revolution. Perhaps not exactly "philosophy" as in "existentialism" or whatever, but it was French nonetheless.

Passing muster: by that I meant that enough legislators didn't agree with it to bring it to a vote. It didn't pass muster ENOUGH - else the vote would be going to the states. Personally, I'm beginning to think that it should have passed muster enough to go to the states, where it could be voted on and decided once and for all.


The Bible: look, there's a lot of good in the Bible, and I have a lot of respect for Christians, but there's a lot of people in the country, a lot of non-christians, a lot of different KINDS of Christians, and if we all want to get along we need to learn how to agree to disagree - as a nation. Ramming our personal beliefs down each other's throats by force of law is bad when liberals do it and just as bad when conservatives do it. That's all I'm saying about that.

Great conversation! :)

[steve-b]

Does that sound like "guaranteeing equitable outcome"?

Yes -- that is precisely a statement that the outcome of moralists (people behave in accordance to the moralists' preferences, by force if necessary) is to be guaranteed.

However, all they may legitimately seek is opportunity (the state protects their right to live as they wish, and to communicate their arguments in favor of imitation by others).

[steve-b]

application of the principle by the "gun-grabbers" is incorrect

Since you are applying the principle in exactly the same manner (i.e. both you and the gun-grabbers wish to constrain people's property rights on the grounds that it will allegedly prevent various indirect effects that supposedly get people killed), that's a pretty damning admission.

[steve-b]

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

Not at all. It is perfectly possible that society would be better off under some benevolent dictator, but that is nevertheless rejected as unacceptable.

[Aquinasfan]

It is perfectly possible that society would be better off under some benevolent dictator, but that is nevertheless rejected as unacceptable.

Rejected as unacceptable by who? Why should this be rejected as "unacceptable"? This form of government could only be "unacceptable" if was not in the best interest of the society, which brings us back to the common good again.

What you're really saying is that a dictatorship could serve the common good, but since it is not a representative form of government, it would not be serving the common good as well as a representative form of government would.

[Aquinasfan]

I don't know why I continue to pursue this, but let me try this another way.

Let's say that we realize your libertarian utopia where everyone agrees not to "initiate force against others," in the sense that you mean.

What then?

.

.

.

.

.

Is that all there is?

Do we then all revel in drugs, pornography and prostitution and pat ourselves on the back for a job well done?

[SendShaqtoIraq]

"The state representatives are more responsive to the people. They are local and respond to the people of their districts,"

Not in Indiana they don't. they are building an interstate in southern indiana that the majority don't want(I do, but I'm in the minority)

They do whatever will line their pockets best, just like the US Congress

[YOUGOTIT]

Interstate highways are usually funded and directed by the federal government and the money is appropriated by the US Congress. However, if you get to know your local state representative you might be surprised how receptive they are for input. As far as a new interstate highway is concerned most of the babble is by the left-wing radical environmentalist and just seems like it is the majority. Besides this country was not based on the majority we are a representative Republic not a democracy.

[SendShaqtoIraq]

"Besides this country was not based on the majority we are a representative Republic not a democracy."

So if the state representatives aren't doing what the majority of their constituents want, how ARE they representing us?

"However, if you get to know your local state representative you might be surprised how receptive they are for input."

As I said, they are IGNORING the input they are getting and doing just as THEY want.

[unspun]

mb:

About the political philosophy at the root of America's founding, have a look at: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/938320/posts

This political philosophy comes from Christians, as formulated chiefly by Britons. The Founding Fathers established a federal government that was "secular" in that it manifestly does not enact Church behavior, nor is it under the rule of any established church. That is not to be confused with the fact of our nation being founded upon the beliefs and principles of Christians. (Among these beliefs are the rights of individual freedom of belief and general expression, since Christ allows these freedoms in this world and age.)

Our President said all this in shorthand, when asked which was his favorite "political philosopher." ;-`

[steve-b]

I don't know why I continue to pursue this

I don't know why dogs chase cars, either -- it's not as if a dog would be able to drive if he caught one.

Let's say that we realize your libertarian utopia where everyone agrees not to "initiate force against others," in the sense that you mean. What then? Is that all there is?

At that point, people would presumably turn their attentions to problems other than the (now solved, given that stipulation) getting the government back on its leash.

[steve-b]

This form of government could only be "unacceptable" if was not in the best interest of the society

Not at all. For example, there are plenty of adults who would probably be better off if they let their parents continue to make all their important decisions, and yet that is properly rejected as unacceptable.

I'm surprised that I'm called upon to state here, of all places, that for a society to be fat, dumb, and happy (i.e. to have its "best interest" taken care of), but without freedom, is an unacceptable state of affairs. Next, I daresay, I'll have to break the news that Bill Clinton was less than entirely honest with the American people.

[Happy2BMe]

Are you either pro-gay or homosexual?

[Happy2BMe]

Ho-Hum Help Has Homosexuals Having Hayday - ping.

_________________________________

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

Bush's fall rival, Sen. John Kerry 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.

_________________________________

Mr. Pweisdent . . Wou .. Would You Pwease Pwotect Hour Famiwies?

Senator Lincoln figures that Arkansas voters will not remember (Pro-Homo Marriage Vote) in November