Posted on 06/07/2006 8:37:51 AM PDT by andy58-in-nh
Edited on 06/07/2006 11:34:52 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Constitutional Amendment on Marriage Fails
Wednesday, June 07, 2006 WASHINGTON — A constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman stalled Wednesday in a 49-48 vote, but conservative backers say they are pleased to have had the vote nonetheless.
"For thousands of years, marriage — the union between a man and a woman — has been recognized as an essential cornerstone of society. ... We must continue fighting to ensure the Constitution is amended by the will of the people rather than by judicial activism,” said Senate Majority leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., after the vote.
A constitutional amendment needs two-thirds votes to pass, but first had to get through the procedural cloture vote, which requires 60 senators to agree to end the debate and move toward final passage.
Shy 11 votes to go to a final debate, few crossed the political aisle to vote against their party's majority position. Republican Sens. John McCain, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Judd Gregg, Arlen Specter, Lincoln Chafee and John Sununu voted against the cloture vote. Democratic Sens. Ben Nelson and Robert Byrd voted for it, as they did in 2004. Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel and Demcratic Sens. Chris Dodd and Jay Rockefeller were absent.
Of course. But we see the same pattern repeated endlessly, almost daily in the MSM. Just yesterday, a special election was held in California in a traditionally Republican district. For several weeks, the media have been promoting a potential Democrat victory as a "harbinger" of bad news for Bush and the Republicans. Last night, the Republican wins. Today in the MSM, you hear...........
I've always been told change is good, but in the Senate, it doesn't happen enough.
I will assume you really do not know RATHER than assume you simply parrot a leftist socialist village meme...
Simply put, because society has decided so. As evidenced in tradition, conventional wisdom, common law, and enacted law. Society -the people through elected representatives, in legislative bodies have enacted legislation that is premised alone upon the rational basis of procreation have decided such... Unlike those arguing for a leftist utopian socialist village ideology would suggest, marriage has never been accommodated, merited privilege, and rewarded simply to foster and promote love or even monogamous sex...
The incidental exceptions cited, e.g. your posting referenced above, do not negate the basis, they test it and in doing so clearly contrast against and specifically identify the basis that some such as you attempt to deny as one very much existing and relevant. Case in point, Griswold v. Connecticut where premised upon a right to privacy it was decided that individuals have the right NOT to procreate via use of contraceptives...
One can clearly see that with Griswold it is that contrasted with the exception that demonstrates clearly the rule, the rational basis of procreation exists!
Regardless a legislature has not chosen to handle exceptions to the basis, e.g. those that choose to contracept, exceptionally by incorporating more rules or by changing totally the basis or doing away with ANY marital accommodation -that is their prerogative, not something for the courts to decide.
Again, as evidenced in Griswold v. Connecticut, there is no supposed heterosexual (or homosexual) right to be accommodated and rewarded by society for entering into non-procreative marriage -such marriages are exceptions incidental to the basis of procreation with such incidence being premised in the right to privacy (just as abortion is).
It is only by illegitimately ignoring the rational basis of procreation - illegitimately conflating the right to privacy (which prohibits the State from enforcing procreation) with the privilege accorded marriage (rationally based in procreation as provided for legislatively by the State) that one can even attempt to argue the ability to choose to engage in homosexual sex with another as something that merits anything from society.
In essence, homosexuals do not get a "free pass" under the privacy right like non-procreative heterosexuals do BECAUSE homosexuals objectively can not possibly ever procreate homosexually...
The ability to procreate and the possibility of procreation -something two homosexuals can not do no matter how much they try...
It's an amendment, it didn't lose by one vote it lost by 18.
Again, very wrong and very naive. They don't just simply wait on legislation until they know it will pass. Just not done in Washington. Until you correct this impression in your mind you will not have a realistic view of how things are done in DC.
It's not done in Washington because they love to grandstand. There's nothing to correct in my impression, I understand that the vast majority of senators and congressmen are career politians and the primary goal of every speech they give, every piece of legislation they propose, and every vote they cast is to keep their job. I understand how it is done in DC, the difference is you think how it's done in DC is a good thing and are willing to buy into their grandstanding BS and I call it was it is: grandstanding BS.
Yes, you're right about that, thanks for the correction!
Where do you get the discrimination point? A gay man can marry a woman and a gay woman can marry a man. There is no discrimination here unless you've bought into the liberal talking points!
Very true...
FYI BostonCreamPie:
You may attempting to promote or advance the homosexualization of society on the wrong Forum? What Free Republic is all about:
Statement by the founder of Free Republic
As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty.Free Republic is private property. It is not a government project, nor is it funded by government or taxpayer money. We are not a publicly owned entity nor are we an IRS tax-free non-profit organization. We pay all applicable taxes on our income. We are not connected to or funded by any political party, news agency, or any other entity. We sell no merchandise, product or service, and we offer no subscriptions or paid memberships. We accept no paid advertising or promotions. We are funded solely by donations (non tax deductible gifts) from our readers and participants.
We aggressively defend our God-given and first amendment guaranteed rights to free speech, free press, free religion, and freedom of association, as well as our constitutional right to control the use and content of our own personal private property. Despite the wailing of the liberal trolls and other doom & gloom naysayers, we feel no compelling need to allow them a platform to promote their repugnant and obnoxious propaganda from our forum. Free Republic is not a liberal debating society. We are conservative activists dedicated to defending our rights, defending our constitution, defending our republic and defending our traditional American way of life.
Ok...you continue on in your cynical purist view of how politics is done.
I will continue thinking that a bill to the floor on a constitutional amendment on marriage is a major victory, analyze what went right or wrong and help work on ways to improve its chances in the future.
Bye.
Keep the government and the courts out of our personal lives. Good.
Senators who do not believe a constitutional amendment over this to be appropriate do not support Homo marriage.
With 45 states already having overwhelming either passing statues or constitutional amendments against gay marriage, this would have passed the US Senate 85 to 15 or better.
Society is a reality -the question is how are social issues decided -a consensus of individuals and ideas OR a one judicial activist with one idealogy?
You seem to advocate for a virtual anarchy -one only possible if one is delusional...
I am very disappointed in the Senators from New Hampshire!
There is little chance for a fix with the expanded electorate of today. During the Founders' day the electorate was very small and not inudated by those looking for a handout and a predisposition to vote for it paid by others.
No one may want to hear this but it is true.
I'm using the term loosely here.
I don't agree with gay marriage but I don't want the Constitution to become a substitute for state law.
It's not a cynical purist view, it's reality. Any idiot (as long as he can find some other idiot to co-sponsor) can put a bill on the floor, there's no victory in getting a bill on the floor, the victory is in getting a bill passed.
As long as you're counting victories where none exist you'll never manage to improve the future. Part of improving the future is knowing the difference between a waste of time and a victory, and this amendment was a complete waste of time.
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.