Gay Marriage Ban Short of Votes in Senate

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush and congressional Republicans are aiming the political spotlight this week on efforts to ban gay marriage, with events at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue - all for a constitutional amendment with scant chance of passage but wide appeal among social conservatives.

"Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society," Bush said in his weekly radio address. "Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all."

The president was to make further remarks Monday in favor of the amendment as the Senate opened three days of debate. Neither chamber, though, is likely to pass the amendment by the two-thirds majority required to send it to the states - three quarters of which would then have to approve it.

Many Republicans support the measure because they say traditional marriage strengthens society; others don't but concede the reality of election-year politics.

"Marriage between one man and one woman does a better job protecting children better than any other institution humankind has devised," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn. "As such, marriage as an institution should be protected, not redefined."

But Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said he will vote against it on the floor but allowed it to survive his panel in part to give the Republicans the debate party leaders believe will pay off on Election Day. Specter has chosen a different battle with the Bush administration this week - a hearing Tuesday on the ways the FBI spies on journalists who publish classified information.

####Because everyone seems to want smaller, less intrusive govt until it comes to their own biases and predjudices. And then ya'll turn 'Liberal', asking for social engineering laws to regulate who spends their life together.####

Nothing in the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) has anything whatsoever to do with who spends their life with whom.

Here's a question I've asked proponents of gay "marriage" ever since I began debating this topic: How would state sanctioning of gay "marriage" DECREASE the size of government? By any possible measure, it would INCREASE government's size and intrusiveness. At the very least, it would add a whole new category of beneficiaries to social security and other government programs. But it wouldn't stop there. Courts and federal education agencies would order gay curricula into the schools. Own a private business? Well, if you offer a discount night for couples and don't include gays, expect to be hauled into federal court. Belong to a church that doesn't perform gay "marriages"? Then you'd better increase your tithes, because the government will likely strip your church of its tax exemption, while allowing those churches obedient to government policy on gays to retain theirs. And you'd better not complain, unless you want to be charged with hate speech.

####Um -- I thought the issue here was, the current letter of the law allows states to make up their own mind? And ya'll are pushing for the federal govt to take power over this? Hence the 'constitutional ammendment'?####

That's true. But we know that the Supreme Court in 1967 ordered the states to sanction interracial marriage. We have every expectation that they'll eventually (within the decade) do so with gay "marriage" as well. We're thus seeking a legitimately ratified constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage. Such an amendment, authorized by Article III of the U.S. Constitution, requires 38 states for approval. The coming judicial fiat mandating nationwide gay "marriage", however, will be different. It will come from outside the Constitution, and will simply be forced on the states via raw federal power. In case you haven't noticed, not a single state in the union wants gay "marriage". The one state which has it (Massachusetts) had it forced upon them by an arrogant state court. The FMA would simply codify the desires of the states and their citizens in the U.S. Constitution. That's hardly a federal power grab. And it's most certainly NOT social engineering.

####Fascinating. In arguing *for* social engineering changes, you claim the other side is doing the social engineering. You guys want to change the law, cuz the letter of the law doesn't favor your social biases.####

Social engineering is using government power to reshape society. The institution of marriage has been heterosexual since its creation. It's been monogamous since early in the history of the Western world, and throughout the history of the United States. The FMA merely reaffirms the societal definition of marriage that we've always had, and which the voters of every state want. How is that using government power to alter society?

The opponents of the FMA, however, are blocking it in order to clear the way for true social engineering: A federal judicial fiat redefining marriage and forcing society to go along with that redefinition. This will be followed by speech codes, new regulations on churches, and other revolutionary social engineering policies imposed on us from the top down.

####You're kidding, right? This law would have the fed gov saying, "This sort of life's union we will offically sanction, That sort of life's union we do not." Pure social engineering.####

Has the federal government EVER sanctioned gay "marriages"? No. Has any state ever sanctioned gay "marriages", other than one state which was forced to by the courts (which, by the way, was an act of social engineering)? The FMA merely says that we will keep the social policy which A) we've always had and B) the people have repeatedly said on referenda that they want to keep. In what topsy-turvy universe can that be called social engineering?

####You are pushing for a law guaranteeing that the federal govt will favor a certain type of 'personal relationship' for the good of socieity.####

True. But that isn't social engineering if it's the type of relationship society has always preferred on its own, which it is. Social engineering is when government tries to force something on society against its will. The pro-gay "marriage" forces are thus the quintessential example of social engineers in action.

####How much more obvious can that be?####

I think you have social engineering and anti-social engineering confused.

Nothing in the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) has anything whatsoever to do with who spends their life with whom.

You can't be serious . . . you're talking about forcing the fed govt to define which life partners get what benefits. Having the fed govt encourage some partnerships, while discouraging others via the use of incentives.

This dishonesty surprises me, most folks on your side of the debate don't deny this obvious truth.

How would state sanctioning of gay "marriage" DECREASE the size of government?

Currently, the States define what a 'marriage' is. You're advocating a power grab for the fed govt to take over this power, "for the good of society".

Political Conservatives are *against* such social engineering.

That's a pretty simple slam-dunk.

We have every expectation that they'll eventually (within the decade) do so with gay "marriage" as well.

The 'politically conservative' approach then would be to push for a law saying that the fed govt has no power over the state's marriage laws. I'd back you on that. A law saying that states set their own rules as to which marriages they recognize.

Which would make more sense, period, and you'd have majority support for it. That would be returning power *back* to the states. Instead of the federal power grab you're pushing, which is a 'Politically Liberal' thing to do.

The FMA merely reaffirms the societal definition of marriage that we've always had, and which the voters of every state want.

In other words, the 'letter of the law' currently lets states do this, but you want your your unwritten "societal definition" (cultural bias) written into federal law.

Oh, btw, you're mistaken if you think marriage has always and only been 'between 1 man and 1 woman'. I'm sure you already know that . . .

Has the federal government EVER sanctioned gay "marriages"?

The federal govt has NEVER HAD A POLICY ON IT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. And you are pushing for a fed govt takeover of this, pushing for the fed govt to take power away from the states.

That is a liberal thing to do.

Social engineering is when government tries to force something on society against its will.

No. Social Engineering is when the govt provides incentives and disincentives to specific social groups and social behaviors.

And this is clearly social engineering.

Main Entry: social engineering
Function: noun
: management of human beings in accordance with their place and function in society : applied social science

You are pushing for the fed govt to define who has a place in marriage and who doesn't. Political conservatives believe this is a state function.

Now, I understand you believe it's "defensive" social engineering, to stop a change in society you don't like. But that's what *all* social engineering is about. Marxists don't like the rich/poor divide. That's the whole point.

In fighting for what you believe, you've become what we're fighting against.

####You can't be serious . . . you're talking about forcing the fed govt to define which life partners get what benefits. Having the fed govt encourage some partnerships, while discouraging others via the use of incentives.####

You've moved the goal posts here. First, you said supporters of the FMA were trying "regulate who spends their life together" (which we aren't). Now it's that we encourage some and discourage others via incentives. How is that any different than current law? Current law is that the federal government DOESN'T recognize gay "marriage", nor does any state except for one which was forced to do so via social engineering (a judicial fiat). So gay couples don't currently get any benefits, while married couples do. That's the way it is. That's the way it's always been since there were federal benefits.

####This dishonesty surprises me, most folks on your side of the debate don't deny this obvious truth.####

We've never denied that we favor traditional marriage over gay "marriage". But that's not social engineering. Codifying the norm **isn't** social engineering.

####*I ASKED*: How would state sanctioning of gay "marriage" DECREASE the size of government?

*YOU RESPONDED* :Currently, the States define what a 'marriage' is. You're advocating a power grab for the fed govt to take over this power, "for the good of society".####

I shouldn't have to point out to you that you didn't answer the question.

Nor did you address my contention that the legalization of gay "marriage", via social engineering judicial fiat, will INCREASE the size of government by increasing the number of people eligible for taxpayer financed benefits. It will also lead to more laws telling property owners who they can rent to, telling private clubs who they can have as members and what beliefs they can hold, telling businesses who they can hire or serve, telling churches what their beliefs can be, and so forth.

Regarding the FMA, you wrote:

####The 'politically conservative' approach then would be to push for a law saying that the fed govt has no power over the state's marriage laws. I'd back you on that. A law saying that states set their own rules as to which marriages they recognize.####

Well, I can't argue with you too much on this. I could POSSIBLY support a states' rights approach as well. But it does have a problem. It allows states such as Massachusetts to continue to be abused by their local courts. And it would still leave open the possibility that federal courts might impose gay "civil unions" on the nation via judicial fiat. Thus, a states' rights amendment would have to guarantee that the feds stayed out of every aspect of this issue, not just "marriage".

####Which would make more sense, period, and you'd have majority support for it. That would be returning power *back* to the states. Instead of the federal power grab you're pushing, which is a 'Politically Liberal' thing to do.####

I'm not pushing a federal power grab. A constitutional amendment, by definition, can't be a federal power grab because it requires the consent of 38 states to be ratified. It's thus a concession of authority to the federal government by the states on a given issue, assuming that's the effect of the amendment. Take female suffrage as an example. An amendment (the 19th) was legitimately ratified by the states, making female suffrage a federal matter. That wasn't a federal power grab, but a concession of authority to the federal government by the states. A federal power grab is something like Roe vs. Wade, where the federal courts forcibly seize an issue from the states, or the impending judicial fiat on gay "marriage", which the opponents of the FMA are wishing to engineer.

####In other words, the 'letter of the law' currently lets states do this, but you want your your unwritten "societal definition" (cultural bias) written into federal law.####

No, I want to restrain the federal courts from redefining marriage, which would be social engineering if they did so.

####Oh, btw, you're mistaken if you think marriage has always and only been 'between 1 man and 1 woman'. I'm sure you already know that . . .####

In American history, it always has been. Utah wasn't allowed to maintain polygamy. I suppose you could say that polygamy was grudgingly tolerated for a while in Utah territory, but it didn't last. And we've never had gay "marriage" except for one state where the social engineers engineered it.

####The federal govt has NEVER HAD A POLICY ON IT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. And you are pushing for a fed govt takeover of this, pushing for the fed govt to take power away from the states.####

Actually, it does have a policy. It doesn't recognize the gay "marriages" in Massachusetts for benefits purposes. Nor did it allow Utah to become a state until they banned polygamy in their state constitution.

####Social Engineering is when the govt provides incentives and disincentives to specific social groups and social behaviors.####

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Government recognition, protection, and encouragement of social institutions which the people themselves created and wish to maintain isn't social engineering. If the people in overwhelming numbers say, "Our historical tradition is that marriage is limited to one man and one woman, and that's how we want it to stay", then it isn't social engineering for government to concur. It would be social engineering for government to thumb its nose at the public, declare war on them, and order the people to accept other forms of marriage, such as gay "marriage".

####Main Entry: social engineering
Function: noun
: management of human beings in accordance with their place and function in society : applied social science####

The FMA is about managing and controlling the government, not vice-versa. It's about restraining out-of-control judges from engaging in social engineering.

####You are pushing for the fed govt to define who has a place in marriage and who doesn't. Political conservatives believe this is a state function.####

See above.

####Now, I understand you believe it's "defensive" social engineering, to stop a change in society you don't like.####

It would be defensive social engineering, as you call it, if the people wanted to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, and we were trying to use government to block it. But it's the other way around. We're trying to protect the people (who have voted over and over, in state after state, to retain marriage as being between one man and one woman) from being ordered by government to change their cherished traditions.

####But that's what *all* social engineering is about. Marxists don't like the rich/poor divide. That's the whole point.####

You lost me on that one.

####In fighting for what you believe, you've become what we're fighting against.####

Then the Founding Fathers must have been social engineers when they empowered the states with the ability to amend the constitution.

First, you said supporters of the FMA were trying "regulate who spends their life together" (which we aren't). Now it's that we encourage some and discourage others via incentives.

Fascinating bit of double-speak.

That is the point -- you are trying to regulate who spends their life together at the federal level by providing disincentives for certain people.

And once again, the difference is that currently it's a state's choice. You want to take the power away from the states, and federalize it. Which is a liberal thing to do.

We've never denied that we favor traditional marriage over gay "marriage". But that's not social engineering.

My friend, this conversation is pointless if all you are going to do is double-speak. You want the fed govt to put into place a law favoring "traditional marriage" over gay marriage. That is, clearly, social engineering.

How would state sanctioning of gay "marriage" DECREASE the size of government?

I *did* answer the question, you just didn't like the answer. I did not say that this would increase the SIZE of govt. I am pointing out this clearly would increase the *reach* and *scope* of the fed govt.

Come on -- this would give the fed govt power that currently belongs to the states. And you can't even admit that's a power grab in the Liberal mold???

I could POSSIBLY support a states' rights approach as well.

Obviously this is the right answer . . . and the 'Conservative' answer. What you are currently pushing is clearly a liberal expansion of the fed govt's power. If you wish to be a political 'conservative', then you need to oppose this ammendment and push for a states-rights solution.

I'm not pushing a federal power grab. A constitutional amendment, by definition, can't be a federal power grab because it requires the consent of 38 states to be ratified.

My gosh, you are twisting your words in the wind. This is flat-out wrong, and I have to believe you know it. When you find yourself saying non-sensical things like this in defense of an idea, well . . . you get the idea.

Then the Founding Fathers must have been social engineers when they empowered the states with the ability to amend the constitution.

Again, just flat-out silly. I'm sorry, but again that is a nonsensical statement.

Put in simplest terms that you can deny only at the risk of invalidating your credibility:

This is taking a power away from the states and giving it to the fed govt.
The stated reason is "for the good of society". That is social engineering.

All your blanket denials and twisting of words not-withstanding.

You are a cultural Marxist...

Um . . . these words have meanings, you know. Attacking the messenger and just name-calling isn't likely to win you any points, I would think.

Especially in a case like this, when 'Marxist' would mean someone who favors giving power to the central govt to achieve social engineering.

In short, think real hard about which side are the "cultural marxists" here!

Too funny!

I am socially objective...

Forgive me, what does that mean to you? Cuz to me, 'objective' would mean you see things the way they are, without bias. And you clearly have a bias in this case. Typically, I have been called 'socially objective' in the past, cuz I can see both the sides have valid points in a case like this.

You clearly only see one side.

Homosexual monogamy is a phantasmagorical fetish and is no more real than those things that seem to appear before us in a dream (the “gay religion”)

60%+ of all marriages end in divorce, adultry is rampant in straight marriages, etc, etc.

I don't actually know any gay couples, so I can't speak to whether or not they stay together for life. But I will simply point out that it doesn't matter to this debate, cuz this is about taking a right of the states and giving it to the federal govt. For the purposes of social engineering.

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.