Posted on 05/18/2006 2:49:31 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. Senate panel advanced a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage on Thursday as the committee chairman shouted "good riddance" to a Democrat who walked out of the tense session.
"If you want to leave, good riddance," The Senate Judiciary Chairman, Republican Arlen Specter, told Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold, who refused to participate because, he said, the meeting was not sufficiently open to the public.
"I've enjoyed your lecture too. See you later, Mr. Chairman," Feingold told the Pennsylvania senator before storming out of the private room where the meeting took place.
The testy exchange highlighted tensions over the proposal, which seeks to amend the U.S. Constitution to prevent states from recognizing same-sex marriages.
The measure passed 10-8 on a party-line vote. Specter said he voted for the amendment because he thought it should be taken up by the full Senate, even though he does not back it.
The gay-marriage ban is one of several hot-button social issues Republicans are raising to rally conservative voters ahead of November's congressional elections.
Because the measure seeks to change the Constitution, it must pass both houses of Congress by a two-thirds majority and then be approved by at least 38 states.
The Senate is expected to take up the bill in early June.
It'll never make it out of the Senate.
Well, if the Democrats and the RINO from Pennsylvania all favor gay marriage, how on earth could this amendment get even a majority vote in the US Senate???
Ditto.
Hey, that's pretty good - you hijacked your own thread from the gitgo. From gay-marriage ban to Bush-bash in a nanosecond.
My hat is off to you.
It will NEVER get a vote on the full floor of the senate, and even if it does it won't get 2/3 of the senate. All of the democrats will oppose it, and there are probably 5 to 10 GOP senators that will vote no. It might not even get a majority in the senate, let alone the 2/3 required to approve a constitutional amendment.
Ditto, rumor is, it's DOA in the full Senate.
There isn't a 2/3 vote in the House.
You're delusional if you think this will pass the Senate.
Specter can still have it both ways for a while longer. It's a good thing to have a number of votes on all sorts of issues before the fall elections. It should help straighten the Senate out some. Frist should be making the 'Rats vote on a hundred issues.
What does all that have to do with the title of your own thread? Let's grow up, hmmm?
You probably don't think that a fence at the border could be as effective as the one around the WH either.
A little tidbit to appease the conservatives while they go ahead and vote to give our Social Security fund to 20 million illegal immigrants.
LOL! You know, even a Scottish RINO like Arlen can make you laugh once in a while!!
If so, the opposition of those who defeated it will be highlighted and underscored in an election year. They'll have to waste reelection money and time defneding their actions.
Not a perfect resolution perhaps, but a useful result nonetheless.
Nothing more than an naked attempt to woo voters before November. Let's face it, the ammendment will never get enough votes in the Senate and even if it does it will never get ratified by the States.
I have an idea, if you disagree with gay marriage, don't marry a gay.
LOLOL....just thinking about Feingold and Arlen telling him GOOD RIDDANCE!!!! LOL
The Senate Judiciary Committee is host to the most hardened left wingers like Ted Kennedy, Leahy, Feinstein, etc. In the full Senate...we can squeeze out 66 votes...remeber that even blue states like Oregon passed the state amendment.
BULL!
SCOTUS
Circuit court judges
Market reforms in an admittedly flawed Medicare bill
Abortion funding cut from foreign aid
Increased military spending
Increased border spending (before this week's proposals)
wiping out Al Qaeda's leadership
keeping the Homeland free from terror attacks since 9/11
not negotiating with terrorist like Arafat and Hamas (unlike the previous administration)
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
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)
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.