Constitutional Amendment on Marriage Fails

Fox News ^

[andy58-in-nh]

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.

[Muzzle_em]

Wouldn't the courts in most states have declared it unconstitutional (like the 9th Circus did)?

Regardless, it would have been nice for our senators to at least pretend to give a crap about family values and marriage. I say it is time to CLEAN HOUSE and purge both Dems and Repubs.

[Old_Mil]

I'ts not cynicism it's the truth. The truth is the GOP senators were getting their ass kicked with the base over the amnesty vote. Putting forth an amendment everybody knows is going to fail miserably isn't moving on the issue, it's distracting from other issues. You move on an issue by attempting to do something that might actually accomplish something, you distract from another issue by making tale full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

You're right - it is the truth. That doesn't mean you oppose a good idea (gay marriage ban) because the politicans proposing it are cynical creeps trying to save their own hides. With this over, it's time to get back to kicking their butts over the illegal immigration issue.

[Freedom_no_exceptions]

"Mr. Madison DBeers, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

I do not "parrot leftist socialist village memes." I merely reject the socialist notion that there's this "society," and that free, sovereign individuals should submit to this "society's" every whim.

You said nothing of substance in your lengthy response, but merely hit the usual conservative buzzwords (society, procreation, privacy, Griswold, yadda, yadda), which amount to nothing more than saying it takes a male and female to procreate. Yep. And then what? Males and females have procreated for thousands, even millions of years, with neither "societal handouts" at the expense of the non-procreating, nor legislation that is "premised alone upon the rational basis of procreation."

You explained THAT governments have been poking their noses into marriage for centuries (as if I didn't know), but you haven't explained WHY they should continue to do so.

[Freedom_no_exceptions]

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?

A tyranny of the majority that terrorizes minorities, or a tyranny of "judicial activists" that terrorizes the majority. Some choice you present. You must excuse me for advocating a better system.

You seem to advocate for a virtual anarchy -one only possible if one is delusional...

Nope, I advocate freedom. And I'm not the one that's delusional. I see what exists, but do not see what's not there. When I'm in a crowd, I see "individuals," not "units of society." Nothing delusional about that.

[rogue yam]

Traditional marraiges haven't been "destroyed" or "devalued" here that I can see.

Your key words are in bold above.

[andy58-in-nh]

I think some Senators opposed to the amendment in fact really do support gay marriage. Other opponents of the amendment are also opposed to gay marriage because they honestly think it unnecessary or ill-advised. To my mind, those in the latter group fail to appreciate the need for such a Constitutional stricture in a time where both the legal profession and the judiciary have come unmoored from their traditional restraints and openly pursue radical political agendas in an open and extra-legislative manner.

[DBeers]

IF you do not want to subsidize married heterosexuals I would suggest petitioning your representatives to do so.

Subsidizing homosexual sex couplings will not help your cause -as such you too should support the FMA...

You appear to contradict yourself -I do not see you presenting a coherent ideology yet... Maybe I miss something -or maybe you just advocate for government free anarchy and as such whine about every government action?

[demkicker]

Whoever runs against McCain in the primaries in 2008 better use this against McCain. Stick a fork in ole RINO for he is done.

Only a megalomaniac like John McCain could think he's got a snowballs chance in hell of winning the GOP nomination, much less the Presidency.

I'm enjoying laughing AT him!

[justshutupandtakeit]

Congress has the power under the "Exceptions Clause", Article III, Section 2, paragraph 2 to remove this issue from the jurisdiction of the judiciary.

I am very reluctant to amend the Constitution for this issue but support the use of it to force the Party of Treason to be on record. It is an absurdity that such an amendment would even be necessary.

[MassachusettsGOP]

The NH Senators are somewhat libertarian. I believe they support States individually banning gay marriage but oppose the federal amendment.

[MarineBrat]

uh...by the fact that they owned slaves--except for John Adams.

The shallowness of your "research" leaves me agape.

[Durus]

I question your premise, though, that a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman would give more power to government. On the contrary, I think it would restrict government from interfering with a private (and sacred) institution.
If it is a private and/or sacred institution then why should government be involved? Passing an amendment "defining" marriage intimates that government has the power to validate (or invalidate) what marriage is. It's none of governments business.

With such an Amendment in place, legislators could not create laws expanding the definition of marriage so as to create new "rights" and entitlements, nor could judges find such "rights" lurking in the shadows of emanations of penumbras of state constitutions, and issue mandates in lieu of legislative action.
Government can't fix problems that government created and more importantly government isn't in the problem solving business they would eventually end up with nothing to do. As far as I can see the current constitution has done little hold back the rise of government power...it has gone so far that citizens have the temerity to question the rights of other citizens because, after all, it's obvious that the biggest problems faced by civilizations all over the world is the result of people having too many rights. (that's sarcasm FYI JIC) If the constitution(s) were a real bar to government's usurpation of power some official would have said long ago "marriage? We have no mandated power to legislate or regulate marriage" and that would have been the end of it.

Marriage is what it has always been, the union of a man and a woman, and the nature of reality ought not be subject to the whims of a politically-powerful interest group with a large megaphone.
Well said and I absolutely agree. Unfortunately government created the problem. Starting with the blatant usurpation of power to "license" marriage they (the activist courts) have simply taken that to the politically correct extreme to "legalize" gay "marriage". I would support a constitutional amendment that read something like "Marriage is none of the governments, both state and federal, business" I would also like to add that the nature of our government shouldn't be subject to the whims of a politically-powerful interest group with a large megaphone but apparently it is. I suggest that giving government more power is not a good solution to the problem facing us.

I will also note that a Marriage Amendment would not preclude other forms of association, including "civil unions" from being created at the state level. The rights and responsibilities conveyed by such unions would, as currently, be a matter of state statute in compliance with Federal law. In other words, if Massachusetts wants to allow two men to enter into a civil union - great. But Florida, or any other state would not be compelled to do the same.
A civil union in one state would have to be recognized by any other state constitutionally just like any other contract.
Article IV
Section 1.
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

[trisham]

In fact, nobody even cares.

*************

Yes, they do. Welcome to Free Republic.

[Freedom_no_exceptions]

IF you do not want to subsidize married heterosexuals I would suggest petitioning your representatives to do so.

My right to keep what I earn is inherent. It is not "given" to me by my "representatives." Suggesting that someone with a minority point of view "write their congressman" is nothing more than a taunt, and you know it. Besides, I can easily turn this around on you: "society's representatives" in the form of one of the houses of Congress shot the amendment down, so maybe YOU should "write to them."

Subsidizing homosexual sex couplings will not help your cause -as such you too should support the FMA...

If it means continuing to subsidize heterosexual (or ANY) couplings at my expense, supporting it would likewise not advance my cause.

You appear to contradict yourself -I do not see you presenting a coherent ideology yet... Maybe I miss something -or maybe you just advocate for government free anarchy and as such whine about every government action?

See my tagline. That's basically my whole philosophy, from a legal perspective. It's also the Golden Rule. It seems to only cover personal issues, but supports economic freedom as well, in that no one is really victimized by people's refusal to turn over their earnings to others. Apart from that, I have no opinion on how others organize their own lives, because those lives are not mine to organize.