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.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

I live in a state that has the dreaded "Gay Marriage,"... In fact, nobody even cares. We're all too worried about our taxes and the ridiculous costs of real estate.

Hey, you made your bed, now lay in it...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

The good point is that our senators are all on record.

Yes. We know who the traitors are...

[KoRn]

".......and we're off to the campaigns!............."

YES! This will animate the Republican base, and they will turn out in droves to vote for them. They will forget about the ever expanding federal spending and the whole giving the country away to Mexico thing.

[Bassfan]

I am pretty sure that Dick Cheney is against the FMA too. I guess he is pro gay agenda.

It's not if he's against this particular FMA for some technical reason, it's if he's against all FMA's that would make him pro gay agenda. DING DING, WE HAVE A WINNER.

[Almondjoy]

I'm glad they voted this down.

It's a state's right issue. I don't care if liberal judges are trying to take over. By changing out position we are just compromising our beliefs.

The states were meant to determine issues like these and that's where it should stay.

[familyop]

"For thousands of years, marriage — the union between a man and a woman — has been recognized as an essential cornerstone of society."

...until we welcomed no-fault divorce laws and unconstitutional false accusation laws against fatherhood. That was decades ago!

[Prodn2000]

Huh? What?

DING DING, WE HAVE A WINNER.???

I didn't know there were degrees of FMAs. The Federal Marriage Amendment simply adds an amendment to the US Constitution stating that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman.

Dick Cheney, however, is probably against all attempts to insert this type of amendment into the Constitution.

(Warning! Paraphrase Ahead!)He said during the '04 campaign that people should be free to enter into any type of relationship that they please.

[Texas Songwriter]

Yes, Rome is burning.

[drubyfive]

>>What's with the 2 New Hampshire Senators?

Live free or die.

[XR7]

In Canada, mum's the word on marriage of gay Mounties
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/=rcmp

Jason Tree, left, and David Connors,
members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police,
plan to marry June 30 in Nova Scotia.

Mounties?

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

No "discrimination" should be enshrined in the Constitution.

Ageed! Thank you!

[old republic]

What about on the Democratic side of the ledger? Is Ben Nelson the only DINO?

No, Senator Byrd voted like a DINO too.

On the immigration amnesty bill(S.2611):
Byrd (WV)
Dorgan (ND)
Nelson (NE)
Stabenow (MI)

On the Marriage amendment:
Byrd
Nelson

[Durus]

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'?!

Government already regulates marriage. That gave it the power to foist same sex "marriage" on the US when, constitutionally, they never had that power in the first place. You are suggesting giving more regulatory power government to correct a problem created by government...that doesn't make any sense. And yes the power to define a term that has nothing to do with government amounts to regulatory power. What would happen if this was passed is that the communists running the homosexual agenda movement would pass another amendment changing the wording of the marriage amendment...and that will give even more power to government. It's not to hard to imagine that this will all lead to government having the power to tell you whom you can't marry and who you must marry. What if government decides that our population is growing at an unsustainable rate...do you find it difficult to imagine that they would suddenly decide that heterosexual marriage should be banned and that only homosexual relationships will be valid?

[Eastbound]

"Is there a systemic fix?"

I think the only answer is to charge those who issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples with fraud and conspiracy and replace them with clerks who know how to use a dictionary. They are not required to 'go along to get along' on this issue, in spite of the court's illegal move in re-defining the word, 'marriage.' The court doesn't have the authority to re-define an already legally-defined word to suit their prejudices.

The more important issue here is stopping judicial activism in its tracks.

[Huck]

The court doesn't have the authority to re-define an already legally-defined word to suit their prejudices.

The more important issue here is stopping judicial activism in its tracks.

That's my point. There seems to be a need for a better check on the judiciary. Civil disobedience is not a viable systemic fix. It's actually a question for the architects of the system. What Would Madison Do?

[Eastbound]

"What Would Madison Do?"

I think he would have taken a job as a country clerk in order to be fired for not issuing a 'marriage' license to a same-sex couple. Then he would have made a federal case out of it and settled the matter once and for all by laying the legal dictionary on the SCOTUS' bench.

[Eastbound]

The county would then have to change the wording on the license to something other than 'marriage.' I've suggested they use 'Smurriage' -- sort of a contraction of the words, sludge, fudge, and merge.

[andy58-in-nh]

 

I always had my doubts about Dudley Do-right. He always seemed far more interested in Snidely Whiplash than in Nell.