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.
Ask me how much my life has changed
#####
It really is not all about you and your life.
Oh, yes, it is. The gays have subtely hijacked the media in various ways to convince people A) that the gay lifestyle is as normal as the heterosexual and then B) that gay marriage is actually an acceptable alternative to a heterosexual marriage. Convincing people of lies is by definition propoganda.
The US political system can handle several issues being worked on at once. Yes, pushing back high taxes and prosecuting a successful WOT are essential. There's also room for pushing back the growing culture of sexual perversity.
Not zotted yet?
I agree that terrorism and immigration are at least as pressing, and need to be taken up . The estate tax needs to go, too, but it does not rise to the level of a critical issue. I happen to think that marriage is critical for the survival of our culture.
The political problem is that the Senate will no sooner act on terrorism and illegal immigration than it was compelled to do on the defense of marriage (where it lined up and punted). It will not act on terroism because it has delegated that responsibility to the Federal bureaucracy (largely DHS).
I predict the Senate will also "punt" on immigration because many Senators want to be able to claim they were on this side - or that side, depending on their audience. A sad state of affairs, but there it is.
simple...
don't move to Texas...
This tells me everything I need to know about you. You are either a troll or you have no idea about the institution of marriage and family. No more needs to be said.
That wasn't gay marriage. That was throwing someone in jail or fining them for consensual sex with an adult in their own homes.
Well, for one the WOT is actually going quite well.
You sound bitter and hopeless. I suspect a move out of one of the highest taxing states might brighten things up for you.
These types of social issues should remain state issues. Let's not turn the Constitution into a scrapbook of social do's and dont's.
Hope it hurts him in the coming election.
There are more of us than you may think, which is what makes some others here itchy. I'm from a red state, and there's definitely a place on this forum for us. I'm not pro-gay marriage, but treated as though I am simply because I don't think a constitutional amendment should be passed on an issue like this.
Looks like the lawmakers agree with me.
Hey! What's wrong with homosexual "marriage"? After all, it's an entirely natural (common among all animal species) and healthy alternative lifestyle.
Uh, fudge packing not routine in animals? AIDS?
Oh wait.
As with most New England Republicans, ours are "squishy". They feel they need to appeal to regional Liberal consitutencies (in NH - that means Portsmouth, Concord, Peterborough and Keene) in order to win re-election. In large measure, they are correct. Unprincipled - but correct.
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.