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.
Right. my bad.
I have to agree. There's no doubt about the political impetus for the debate on the amendment at this time. But...it doesn't make it wrong to talk about an important matter that has refocused Conservatives (a little) on social issues that are not going away.
Illegal immigration is still numero uno, though (pardon the pun), and George Bush needs to understand that his base will not be mollified by half-attempts at border enforcement and a full-court press toward legalization.
I am pretty sure that Dick Cheney is against the FMA too. I guess he is pro gay agenda.
If this vote was designed to tell us that we need to oust some Democrats from the Senate in order to get what we want, then let it be a reminder that we also need to oust some republicans, too.
What would it take to have a lock on a constitutional convention, so that it wouldn't be so threatening to have one?
In the end, no matter how long it takes, conservatives will WIN on this issue.
Glad to see this hijacking of the Constitution fail. This issue belongs to the states.
I'm glad someone sees this is mainly just to define the word 'marriage'. It's interesting that some people get so worked up over a word, especially the same people who have so little respect for them.
True. How telling that some CAN'T differ without it.
Not a surprise considering the wild and wacky AMNESTY bill. These sinners wouldn't pass a thing that the majority of people want...
With the FMA, the states that don't want to 'ban' it will recognize it. So what's the big deal except you seem to have overmuch faith in the courts not to impose same-sex marriage on the rest of us. In any case, the FMA doesn't ban same-sex marriage. It just says you can't call it that. It also explicitly indicates that one state is under no obligation to recognize a same-sex marriage of another state. Of course, it's your prerogative to assert states should have no protection against being forced to recognize same-sex marriages of other states.
Poster has already bought and paid for the "new" [illegitimate], PC definition of "marriage", thereby consigning the centuries-old definition to the category "descirminatory".
FWIW: It's still a compliment to be said to have "discriminating" taste.
In order to completely ratify the PC redefinition of "marriage", proponents of the new def have been sent to the hardware store to demonstrate the new def using pairs of common threaded fasteners of single gender only.
That ought'a keep 'em busy for awhile.
Don't worry about your beard when your head's about to be chopped off.
Without a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman, we'll end up with a federal judicial fiat imposing gay "marriage" on the entire country, followed by gay adoption, mandatory gay curricula in the public schools, hate speech laws, more federal controls over private property and private organizations, IRS scrutiny of churches that don't perform gay "marriages", and additional exponential increases in government power.
Regulate marriage?! The FMA does not regulate marriage. It defines marriage. Since when does defining a term constitute regulation? It prevents same-sex marriage from being forced on states that don't want to recognize it. Where to you get 'regulate' out of that? Let's force same-sex marriage on states that don't want it, but that's not 'regulation'?!
>>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).<<
I oppose legalizing gay marriage but I thought this effort at this time was just pandering politics. Any conservative that was going to sit home in November and now will vote is a conservative who is easily led.
Very good explanation. I think many of us realize this on an intuitive level, but you express this in words nicely. Thanks.
The Senate is out of touch with America: every time it is voted upon, the people say "NO" to gay marriage.
The majority say no to homosexual marriage but the ACLU just says "Bigots!"
It's just soooooo yucky! I'm so sick of the homo agenda shoved down my face and so is the majority.
"Don't worry about your beard when your head's about to be chopped off.
Without a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman, we'll end up with a federal judicial fiat imposing gay "marriage" on the entire country, followed by gay adoption, mandatory gay curricula in the public schools, hate speech laws, more federal controls over private property and private organizations, IRS scrutiny of churches that don't perform gay "marriages", and additional exponential increases in government power."
The problem is that with this constitutional amendment, no state will be free to impose any of those policies. While I don't necessarily think the states should implement any of that stuff, I am a strong believer in the federal system of government. If the people in one state want to implement a certain policy, the people should be free to do so - if you don't like it, work through the legislature to stop it.
I guess my difference with most of the people on this site is that y'all seem to view this as primarily a social/moral issue, while I view it as a size/scope of government issue. I don't believe we should give the federal government any more power than is absolutely necessary, no matter how noble the goal is.
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.