Posted on 09/30/2004 11:34:09 PM PDT by ETERNAL WARMING
QUEERLY BELOVED Marriage protection rejected by House Constitutional amendment fails to get two-thirds vote
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: October 1, 2004 1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
WASHINGTON – A constitutional amendment defining marriage as an institution between one man and one woman was defeated in the House of Representatives last night as it fell 49 votes short of the two-thirds needed.
The vote was 227-186.
"God created Adam and Eve, He didn't create Adam and Steve," said Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., on behalf of a measure that supporters said was designed to protect an institution as old as civilization itself.
Democrats countered that Republicans were motivated by election-year politics as much as anything, particularly since a Senate vote this year ended any immediate chance the amendment could be sent to the states for ratification.
Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the Democratic whip, accused GOP leaders of "raw political cynicism" and said they hoped to "create the fodder for a demagogic political ad."
Bush issued a statement expressing disappointment with the vote's outcome.
"Because activist judges and local officials in some parts of the country are seeking to redefine marriage for the rest of the country, we must remain vigilant in defending traditional marriage," the president said.
The measure drew the support of 191 Republicans and 36 Democrats. Voting against it were 158 Democrats, 27 Republicans and one independent.
Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, was the principal speaker on behalf of the measure. DeLay said the need for congressional action was "forced upon us by activist judges trying to legislate from the bench." He noted that under 1996 legislation passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton, marriage is defined as between a man of a woman.
"One would think this would be the end of the story. But it is not," DeLay said. The law is "under an incessant and coordinated attack in the federal courts," where he said judges feel a greater "responsibility to their own political ideology than the Constitution."
"The limitations of traditional marriage rest not on an intent to discriminate, but on what is most beneficial for society and children as evidenced by volumes of social science research," added Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo.
"Traditional marriage is worth preserving, because the nuclear family is far and away the best environment in which to raise children. Every child deserves both a father and a mother," said Musgrave, whose persistent advocacy for the measure has gained her national notice unusual for a first-term lawmaker.
Opponents saw it differently.
"We feel love and we feel it in a way different than you," said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who is openly homosexual. "We feel it with someone of the same sex, male or female, and we look at your institution of marriage and we see the joy it brings. How do we hurt you when we share it?"
"This is a partisan exercise to distract the American people from the Republicans' record of failure," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat. "This amendment is malicious," Pelosi said. "It is motivated by an animus toward lesbians and gays. It is a sad moment that those clinging to power want to use that to divide the American people for what they perceive to be an electoral advantage."
The Democrats have placed themselves on record as being AGAINST 80% of the American people on the issue of banning gay marriage. What a lovely place to be.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40715
Roll call vote on marriage amendment at the above URL.
disgusting and shameful.
I take that comment back, at first thought there were a lot of republican "defectors"
(with two priesthoods)
(America is NOT in bible Prophecy)
(a name 'blotted' out?)
/sarcasm
here's another source for the voting record which identifies Republicans versus Democrats by text-type:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll484.xml
______________________________
Just what we expected - ping.
| Yeas | Nays | PRES | NV | |
| Republican | 191 | 27 | 9 | |
| Democratic | 36 | 158 | 11 | |
| Independent | 1 | |||
| TOTALS | 227 | 186 | 20 |
| Aderholt Akin Alexander Bachus Baker Ballenger Barrett (SC) Bartlett (MD) Barton (TX) Beauprez Berry Bilirakis Bishop (GA) Bishop (UT) Blackburn Blunt Boehner Bonilla Bonner Boozman Boucher Boyd Bradley (NH) Brady (TX) Brown (SC) Brown-Waite, Ginny Burgess Burns Burr Burton (IN) Buyer Calvert Camp Cantor Capito Carson (OK) Carter Chabot Chandler Chocola Coble Cole Collins Cooper Costello Cramer Crane Crenshaw Cubin Culberson Cunningham Davis (AL) Davis (TN) Davis, Jo Ann Davis, Tom Deal (GA) DeLay DeMint Doolittle Duncan Edwards Ehlers Emerson English Etheridge Everett Feeney Ferguson Flake Forbes Ford Fossella Franks (AZ) Gallegly Garrett (NJ) Gillmor |
Gingrey Goode Goodlatte Gordon Granger Graves Green (WI) Gutknecht Hall Harris Hart Hastert Hastings (WA) Hayes Hayworth Hefley Hensarling Herger Herseth Hoekstra Holden Hulshof Hyde Isakson Issa Istook Jefferson Jenkins John Johnson (IL) Johnson, Sam Jones (NC) Keller Kelly Kennedy (MN) King (IA) King (NY) Kingston Kline LaHood Lampson Latham LaTourette Lewis (CA) Lewis (KY) Linder LoBiondo Lucas (KY) Lucas (OK) Manzullo Marshall Matheson McCotter McCrery McHugh McIntyre McKeon Mica Miller (FL) Miller (MI) Miller, Gary Moran (KS) Murphy Musgrave Myrick Neugebauer Ney Northup Norwood Nunes Nussle Ortiz Osborne Otter Oxley Pearce |
Pence Peterson (MN) Peterson (PA) Petri Pickering Pitts Platts Pombo Porter Portman Putnam Quinn Radanovich Rahall Ramstad Regula Rehberg Renzi Reynolds Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rogers (MI) Rohrabacher Ross Royce Ryan (WI) Ryun (KS) Sandlin Saxton Schrock Scott (GA) Sensenbrenner Sessions Shadegg Shaw Sherwood Shimkus Shuster Simpson Skelton Smith (MI) Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Souder Spratt Stearns Stenholm Sullivan Tancredo Tanner Taylor (MS) Taylor (NC) Terry Thomas Thompson (MS) Thornberry Tiahrt Tiberi Toomey Turner (OH) Upton Vitter Walden (OR) Walsh Wamp Weldon (FL) Weldon (PA) Weller Whitfield Wicker Wilson (NM) Wilson (SC) Wolf Young (AK) Young (FL) |
| Abercrombie Ackerman Allen Andrews Baca Baird Baldwin Bass Becerra Bell Berkley Berman Biggert Bishop (NY) Blumenauer Bono Boswell Brady (PA) Brown (OH) Butterfield Capps Capuano Cardin Cardoza Carson (IN) Case Castle Clay Clyburn Conyers Cox Crowley Cummings Davis (CA) Davis (FL) DeFazio DeGette Delahunt DeLauro Deutsch Dicks Dingell Doggett Dooley (CA) Doyle Dreier Emanuel Engel Eshoo Evans Farr Fattah Filner Foley Frank (MA) Frelinghuysen Frost Gephardt Gerlach Gibbons Gilchrest Gonzalez |
Green (TX) Greenwood Grijalva Gutierrez Hill Hinchey Hinojosa Hobson Hoeffel Holt Honda Hooley (OR) Hostettler Houghton Hoyer Inslee Israel Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Johnson (CT) Johnson, E. B. Jones (OH) Kanjorski Kaptur Kennedy (RI) Kildee Kilpatrick Kind Kirk Kleczka Knollenberg Kolbe Kucinich Langevin Lantos Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Leach Lee Levin Lewis (GA) Lipinski Lofgren Lowey Lynch Majette Maloney Markey Matsui McCarthy (MO) McCarthy (NY) McCollum McDermott McGovern McInnis McNulty Meehan Michaud Millender-McDonald Miller (NC) Miller, George Mollohan |
Moore Moran (VA) Nadler Napolitano Neal (MA) Obey Olver Ose Owens Pallone Pascrell Pastor Paul Payne Pelosi Pomeroy Price (NC) Pryce (OH) Rodriguez Rothman Roybal-Allard Ruppersberger Rush Ryan (OH) Sabo Sánchez, Linda T. Sanchez, Loretta Sanders Schakowsky Schiff Scott (VA) Serrano Shays Sherman Simmons Slaughter Smith (WA) Snyder Solis Stark Strickland Stupak Sweeney Tauscher Thompson (CA) Tierney Towns Turner (TX) Udall (CO) Udall (NM) Van Hollen Velázquez Visclosky Waters Watson Watt Waxman Weiner Wexler Woolsey Wu Wynn |
| Boehlert Brown, Corrine Cannon Davis (IL) Diaz-Balart, L. Diaz-Balart, M. Dunn |
Harman Hastings (FL) Hunter Meek (FL) Meeks (NY) Menendez Murtha |
Nethercutt Oberstar Rangel Reyes Ros-Lehtinen Tauzin |
One of the reasons I vote Republican - ping on #10
"The Democrats have placed themselves on record as being AGAINST 80% of the American people on the issue of banning gay marriage. What a lovely place to be."
Their republican opponents can hammer them with their support of the perverts who would destory marriage and America.
ping
Homosexual Agenda Ping and *RANT*.
Well, I can't avoid it anymore. I have to ping this bad news out. I (perhaps naively) thought this would pass the House. Yet another VERY glaring example of how the elites in DC - many of them with an "R" after their names - are not actually representing the interests and values of the majority of the American people.
Just take a look at the state wide referendums (referenda?) protecting marriage from the travesty of same sex "marriage" - they've all passed by a mind boggling overwhelming majority. Look at LA, MI, and even OR may pass it. Yet the elites in Washington DC want to lead us into the rosy future of hedonistic, amoral, values free (except for their socialist, inverted, Nazi-esque "values") utopia.
Which will be a hell on earth, as all Utopias turn out to be. Replete with Jack Booted Thugs, re-education camps, children raised by the state, and all.
Our problem (as conservatives; some of us, anyway) is that we don't want to face the fact that Evil with a capital "E" does exist, and is alive and well in the leftist agenda and those who subscribe to it; whether they be movers and shakers or useful idiots. That's one of the tragedies - useful idiots who are once innocent but stupid become Evil once they join the ranks of Evil.
If we want Evil to win, we just need to keep on being silent, going along to get along, not speaking up, not writing letters to the editor, not running for office, not prosecuting Evil, acquiescing to it because "it's not that bad yet", not Freeping, not picketing, not protesting our representatives when they prove themselves to be d**kless and feckless, not expressing outrage or demanding recourse when leftists play dirty tricks, not funding those who are doing good in the world, and not doing it ourselves.
If we want our side to prevail, we have to be willing to make sacrifices - of our time, our money, our comfy security in the form even of losing jobs, losing friends, losing relatives.
If we don't do the above, we deserve whatever we get.
Let me and Scripter know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
Just more evidence that we can't depend on our elected officials to speak for us. When this issue is brought to WE THE PEOPLE, 'gay marriage' is rejected over and over again. When we give power to the Elite, we lose.
I've already lost friends, and put my job in jeopardy over our organization:
www.rallyformarriage.org
But it doesn't bother me in the least. What's done for Him is what lasts...
Very, very disappointing. If we can't pass this with a Republican congress, when will we ever be able to get it passed?
It was, however, meant to force our congressional representatives to declare a stand on the issue one way or the other.
The declaration of many of the republicans who voted against the ammendment will not play well when they come up for re-election, thus creating an opening for a more conservative candidate. This scenario may also hold true for many of the democrats who voted against the ammendment.
So don't "throw in the towel" yet, Jeremiah !
Thanks for the encouraging words. I gotta take the long view...
Every now and then I lose a little of my natural enthusiasm and want to go sit in a corner with my head down.
Yes, there still is a difference between Republicans and Democrats.
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.