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.
***********
You're not looking in the right direction, then. You must be looking to the left.
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.
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.
**************
And yet, you chose this thread, which is not about the wot. Odd.
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.
Is your tag line intentionally equal to "An it harm no one, do what thou wilt"?
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.
I wasn't too familiar with Wicca when I registered on FR, but, yeah, it appears essentially the same.
Yes, it's identical. It's a bit shy of the golden rule of Christianity though.
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.
A Constitutional Convention does not require the go-ahead from the Senate.
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)...
Caligula's horse was a better senator than these clowns.
No, they are not all on record. There were three cowards: Hagel, Dodd and Rockefeller. These three were absent for the vote.
Maybe they are both closet gays.
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.Your argument would easily be refuted by the NAMBLA couple wanting to adopt a little boy. They would argue:
--BostonCreamPie
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.
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.