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.

[trisham]

All I need to do is look around.

***********

You're not looking in the right direction, then. You must be looking to the left.

[andy58-in-nh]

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

That's absolutely right. However, Congress has been reluctant in the extreme to exercise this power, preferring political compromise and legislative remedies to a raw display of force. For that reason, ther's little case law on the subject.

Perhaps this is as the Framers intended it. On the other hand, the judiciary used to exercise sufficient self-restraint as to avoid usurping legislative functions. In many cases, it no longer does. Members of what you term the "Party of Treason" are using the Federal judiciary to advance an agenda (including gay marriage) designed to break down traditional society and economic liberty in the service of a Utopian socialist ideology for which they intend to be the new Ruling Class.

 

[MACVSOG68]

If you don't think gay activism along with judicial activism isn't a "real" problem in this country then you're beyond help.

Gay activism is not such a problem that it requires a constitutional amendment to prevent states from legislating in family law issues, an acknowledged Tenth Amendment power. If a state can't find the popular support to amend their own constitution, don't expect the other 49 to pull their chestnuts out of the fire for them.

[JayWhit]

You're argument is not wholly without merit. It certainly is the best religiously-neutral justification for banning gay marriage. However, this position lost most of its force in the 1970's when almost every state passed a "no-fault" divorce statute. Prior to these laws, a plaintiff in a divorce had a burden to prove fault on the part of their spouse in order to receive a divorce order. Lawyers and judges were aware of the perjury associated with unhappy, but otherwise innocent, couples proving grounds for divorce. No-fault statutes were passed to provide a divorce mechanism for couples that did not want to remain married, but were each free of fault as defined by domestic relations laws. The passage of these laws stood for the proposition that marriage was a private agreement between the couple, and that the government did not want to manage or judge the quality of their relationship, even if there were children. The government lost the ability to claim an interest in the "purpose" of marriage at that time. Congress is trying to close the gate after the horse is out of the stable. This amendment won't happen. I'll leave whether it should to others.

[trisham]

Well, I'm ready to move on to a topic we can all agree on, like killing terrorists.

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

And yet, you chose this thread, which is not about the wot. Odd.

[steve-b]

Er, no. A close reading of the clause shows that Congress can regulate both the original and appellate jurisiction of lower courts and can regulate the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The upshot is that Congress can control which court exercises the judicial power in which cases, but cannot abridge the judicial power overall.

[steve-b]

That's absolutely right.

No, it isn't; see previous message.

Perhaps this is as the Framers intended it.

Note that when a situation arose, while most of the Framers were still alive and active in politics, in which it was considered necessary to remove a certain type of case from the purview of federal courts, it was considered necessary to do so by Constitutional amendment rather than by Congressional fiat.

[DungeonMaster]

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.

Is your tag line intentionally equal to "An it harm no one, do what thou wilt"?

[Theodore R.]

No, Bassfan, the other candidates will just cower in the presence of "war hero" McCain. Even Rick Lazio did that with "Saint" Hillary. The other candidates know he's a phony, but they are themselves so phony that they fear calling McCain the spade he is.

[Freedom_no_exceptions]

Is your tag line intentionally equal to "An it harm no one, do what thou wilt"?

I wasn't too familiar with Wicca when I registered on FR, but, yeah, it appears essentially the same.

[DungeonMaster]

Yes, it's identical. It's a bit shy of the golden rule of Christianity though.

[discostu]

Where did I say I oppose anything? I've taken no position on the contents of the amendment at all, I'm simply pointing out that the whole thing was a show. Really I didn't care about the contents of the amendment, I knew it was a show, I knew it wasn't going to pass, and I felt no need to respect their song and dance enough to give it an opinion.

[ExSoldier]

Although I strongly support this one...this was a blatant attempt by the Administration to shift the focus from immigration to an issue to lure the base back to the fold. It's not gonna fly. Witness the fact that Tancredo recently won some straw polls as a Presidential contender. What's his #1 issue?

[TaxRelief]

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;

A Constitutional Convention does not require the go-ahead from the Senate.

[DBeers]

However, this position lost most of its force in the 1970's when almost every state passed a "no-fault" divorce statute.

It could be argued both ways and I would suggest that in resolving apparent contradictions between the two ways one would necessarily find the truth as to just what the rational basis premising accommodation and privilege of heterosexual marriage was and remains to be...

e.g. no fault divorce simply is an admission that love can not be legislated and as such is by default not a rational basis premising ANY accommodation and privilege (therefore promoting love via homosexual marriage is a non starter)...

e.g. no fault divorce simply is an admission that keeping a couple together in the interest of raising children can not be legislated and as such is by default not a rational basis premising ANY accommodation and privilege (therefore promoting raising of children via homosexual marriage is a non starter)...

[Charles Martel]

All the usual (RINO) suspects crossed the aisle so that two men or two women may walk down the aisle (or a man and a horse, for that matter).

Caligula's horse was a better senator than these clowns.

[conservative blonde]

No, they are not all on record. There were three cowards: Hagel, Dodd and Rockefeller. These three were absent for the vote.

[newgeezer]

Defenders of 'gay marriage' should read this:
A Game of Truth-or-Dare

[conservative blonde]

Maybe they are both closet gays.

[ofwaihhbtn]

I do have a logical basis: child molestation is harmful, and a crime. Membership in NAMBLA clearly casts doubt on a child's probably safety with that couple.
--BostonCreamPie

Your argument would easily be refuted by the NAMBLA couple wanting to adopt a little boy. They would argue:

People used to consider abortion harmful and it used to be a crime. People were wrong. Traditional values have been tossed out regarding abortion, they should be discarded again regarding adult/child sex. You are just imposing your personal "morality" on us. You religious fanatics and the government need to keep your noses out of our most intimate family relationships and out of our bedrooms.

Now the NAMBLA couple is totally wrong about their "right" to child adoption, but your shallow argument against it assures them eventual victory.

Is it right for the state to criminalize/sanction various kinds of sexual relationships based on traditional values? If it is then we can justify the prohibition of NAMBLA member adoptions -- and state-sanctioned gay marriage. If it isn't, then you have to buy NAMBLA adoptions, group marriage, lowering the age of consent to whatever NAMBLA wants -- and state-sanction gay marriage.