Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gay Marriage Ban Short of Votes in Senate
The Washington Times ^ | Jun 5, 2006 | LAURIE KELLMAN

Posted on 06/05/2006 10:00:29 AM PDT by kellynla

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.

(Excerpt) Read more at ap.washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government
KEYWORDS: 109th; 2006trolls; arlensphincter; demagoguery; distraction; diversion; dogandponyshow; evasion; flimflam; fma; homosexualagenda; homosexuals; irrelevancy; lookingbusy; manbehindthecurtain; marriage; pandering; razzledazzle; socialliberals
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 321-333 next last
To: pec
Bottom line: The government should have nothing to say about any marriage.

I agree with this. I think consenting adults should be free to enter into whatever marital contract they please, as long as no physical harm or other crime is committed.

Securing the nation's borders is, however, probably the main task of any government. It'd be nice if this government got around to performing this task.
21 posted on 06/05/2006 10:49:57 AM PDT by AnotherUnixGeek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: pec

I think you miss the point. The legitimacy of marriage is something that no law can give credence to. But, to the extent it conveys legal rights and status it should be decided by the VOTERS not courts. That is what this issue is about.


22 posted on 06/05/2006 10:51:11 AM PDT by FlipWilson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: FlipWilson

Well said, Flip.


23 posted on 06/05/2006 10:58:00 AM PDT by fgoodwin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: AnotherUnixGeek; pec

The thing is, married couples have rights that non-married couples don't have. They can adopt children, for example, or have legal protection to rent homes. And the government schools tend to promote "normal" marriage in textbooks, etc.

If gays can get the legal status of "married," then they can sue to have their "normalized" status promoted in school textbooks, they can sue landlords who don't want to rent to fudgepackers, they can adopt children, they can sue organizations that provide help to those wanting to escape the gay lifestyle, they can demand Christian charities accept their lifestyle, and so on.

It has real consequences.


24 posted on 06/05/2006 11:03:46 AM PDT by Theo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

Comment #25 Removed by Moderator

To: pec

I have to dust off the cobwebs in my head to reply to this, because I haven't studied this for a while, but if I recall correctly, marriage has always been considered more of a civil/social institution as opposed to a strictly religious one. The various religions have become involved in it but I believe that came from a time when a religion and a community were more closely-knit and closely-identified. Over time, elements of Christianity developed a sacramental understanding of marriage as a divine grace dispensed by the Church and consummated by the married couple, but others do not have this understanding, and so a wedding for them is a public testimony before the community, and with God's blessing, that this couple is married. (I think the idea that the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, etc. would try to impose their understanding of marriage on the rest of society is a moot point, since they don't claim that their laws apply to non-members, and certainly they don't offer their sacraments to non-members.)

If I recall correctly, Christian clergy did not get involved as functionaries of the state until well after Christianity because "official" in the Roman Empire, or what was left of it. But, at least according to marriage laws in the United States, no religious official is required to perform (or be primary witness to) a marriage, but some duly-authorized person (judge, justice of the peace) is required. (I don't know what Quakers do.)

Another thing that I think has made marriage more of a social/civil institution as opposed to a strictly religious one is the concern for all of the things that come along with a marriage -- the assertion that each spouse has legal rights that require protection if the other breaks the bonds of marriage; the concern that children are properly protected and cared for; the settlement of divorces; and the dispersal and disposition of property in the event of divorce or the death of one or both of the spouses.

Marriage is too complex an institution for it to be considered the simple sacred union of two isolated individuals. It is that, but it's also a lot more than that.

I know that I didn't answer your question as to why conservatives would support a government definition of marriage, but I did try to answer how and why government, whatever that might mean at any given time and place in human history, has had an involvement and an interest in the details of the institution.


26 posted on 06/05/2006 11:14:11 AM PDT by Southside_Chicago_Republican (The moving finger writes and, having writ, moves on......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: conservative blonde

The Constitution is supposed to be about government behavior, not personal behavior. The attempt to change/outlaw one form of personal behavior was thumpingly reversed in a little more than a decade. Why do you want to change the focus of the Constitution?


27 posted on 06/05/2006 11:17:44 AM PDT by linda_22003
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Wuli
In fact, I will go one step further; are we being bated to "come back to the fold" on immigration because: "see, he really is" "with us" on this issue?

Same type of rope a dope that the rat's have pulled on black voters for years.

28 posted on 06/05/2006 11:18:22 AM PDT by org.whodat (Never let the facts get in the way of a good assumption.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: pec

VERY well put


29 posted on 06/05/2006 11:20:40 AM PDT by returnofthemack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
This is just President Bush's feeble attempt at shoring up his base and can be largely ignored.

I suspect the base's level of outrage (cause mostly by the amnesty bill) will not be touched by this.

30 posted on 06/05/2006 11:25:33 AM PDT by upchuck (Wikipedia.com - the most unbelievable web site in the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

Why not pass it and let the PEOPLE HAVE A VOTE on it?


31 posted on 06/05/2006 11:30:55 AM PDT by Joe Boucher (an enemy of islam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sunshine Sister
But Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said he will vote against it on the floor

Toomey/Specter: Did endorsements matter in this race?

Three endorsements likely made the difference for Specter. The endorsement of President Bush was crucial. The President is very popular among the state's Republican voters, with more than three in four (76%) having a favorable opinion of him (84% of conservative Republicans have a favorable opinion of the President). Only two in five (41%) Republicans view Specter favorably (39% of conservative Republicans).

Yet, in our final Keystone Poll, Specter was holding his own among self-described conservatives, 51 percent to 49 percent. Without the President's endorsement, it is conceivable that Toomey would have gained support from six in ten conservative voters.

Then, too, the endorsement of the state's conservative Senator, Rick Santorum, provided important cover for Specter. His high profile endorsement and activity on behalf of Specter sent a clear signal to conservatives that it was okay to cast a vote for Specter. Santorum�s work on behalf of his colleague helped to inoculate Specter against the charge that he was too liberal and not a true partisan.
32 posted on 06/05/2006 11:34:41 AM PDT by Old_Mil (http://www.constitutionparty.org - Forging a Rebirth of Freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #33 Removed by Moderator

To: Wuli
So, don't flame me, but is his recent public notice of approval for that amendment different, politically, than his sending national guard troops to the border in the 11th hour of our "national immigration debate"?

No, it is no different politically. It's window dressing so that one can appear to try and solve a problem that one doesn't really want a solution to. If Bush had been behind this it would have (1) Been pushed sooner and more consistently during his presidency and (2) John Bolton would not have cast his most recent pro-homosexual vote at the UN. It took Iran to save us from that one.
34 posted on 06/05/2006 11:37:05 AM PDT by Old_Mil (http://www.constitutionparty.org - Forging a Rebirth of Freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: pec
Well put. Every time a couple of guys get married in MA, my wife and I grow further apart. Another 20 marriages or so, and we'll be unable to conceive. lol...

You're mistaken if you think the gay lobby is concerned about you and your wife. It's your kids they want, so that they can indoctrinate them into the suitability of their "alternative" in school, recruit them if they can, infect them with AIDS, and kill them.

Its unfortunate you don't see that.
35 posted on 06/05/2006 11:38:43 AM PDT by Old_Mil (http://www.constitutionparty.org - Forging a Rebirth of Freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: sageb1

"BHUBANESWAR: A woman, who claimed to have fallen in love with a snake got married to the reptile as per Hindu rituals at Atala village of Orissa's Khurda district, 14 km from here."


I used to laugh when people claimed marriage between people of the same gender would lead to marriage with animals, but I now must bow to their superior wisdom. Even worse, I already have some friends who claim they are married to icebergs.


36 posted on 06/05/2006 11:44:12 AM PDT by Gone GF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Old_Mil

Whenever you are ready, we will welcome you back to reality from whatever dream world you are in.


37 posted on 06/05/2006 11:44:52 AM PDT by ModerateGOOPer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

Comment #38 Removed by Moderator

To: pec

I often wonder how I ended up with three kids. I guess it was before all this gay marriage talk. Actually the real reason I am against the amendment is more to do with government interference than gay marriage, but either way it does not bother me or my wife and somehow my three kids are surviving as well. I really feel horrible about some people who worry about it and stay up at night consummed with angst. I also laugh about the stories that doom is coming with the people marrying their dogs and cats and snakes and horses and even dolphins (someone posted a picture of the ceremony on our conservative site). I found it a hoot. Believe me, I am conservative as the next guy, but when you go to great lengths as that then I just have to laugh.


39 posted on 06/05/2006 11:46:35 AM PDT by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ModerateGOOPer
Whenever you are ready, we will welcome you back to reality from whatever dream world you are in.

You must be one of those well respected scientists who believe that homosexuals replicate themselves through binary fission, not recrutiment.
40 posted on 06/05/2006 11:46:40 AM PDT by Old_Mil (http://www.constitutionparty.org - Forging a Rebirth of Freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 321-333 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson