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.
Sorry. Didn't mean to direct my last post to you. :)
wow, some would differ and without the profanity
I believe we do have a majority in defense of marriage. The difficulty (as with the isssue of illegal aliens) is that Senate rules are frequently used to thwart the will of the majority while avoiding an actual vote. The use of cloture votes and filibusters enables Senators to claim to have been on either side of an issue, depending on who their audience happens to be.
LOL!!
Not going to play well, especially in the primaries. McCain's chances on the GOP nomination, R.I.P.
None of those "real" problems mean squat if there is no family left in America.
How do you come to the conclusion that recognizing what is already obvious is discrimination?
Welcome to FR by the way : )
If you don't think gay activism along with judicial activism isn't a "real" problem in this country then you're beyond help.
And refusing cloture to allow a final vote wastes more time. If cloture requires 60 votes and ratification requires 67 votes, then it would have been less waste of time to vote for cloture, then have an actual vote on the amendment which would have resulted in the amendment failing.
ding ding... and we have a winner.
leave this crap to the states.
as for McCain, I think he just put the nail in his "presidential hopes" coffin.
Then where will you stand after all but two states ban it, but a federal judge somewhere rules to overturn the will of the people of those 48 states by making their states accept the marriage license of a homo couple from Massachussetts? Then where will you stand if the Supreme Court, because W doesn't get the opportunity to make 2 more appointments, rules that the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution means that MA and VT can override the will of the people of the other 48 states?
"beyond help"?
What, you mean there's something two days of worthless babble from the Senate on a no-go Amendment can't fix!?
Right on the money!
He's BEEN done.
Just because "you" don't think gay marriage is a serious issue doesn't mean "we" all go along with your opinion.
We are not all from Massachusetts and haven't been exposed to the heavy propoganda that the gays have unleashed there. Thank God.
How do you like the fact that a couple of liberal activist judges in your state can dictate to the legislature what it can do by making up rulings out of whole cloth?
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.