Posted on 07/14/2004 9:50:28 AM PDT by 11th Earl of Mar
Edited on 07/14/2004 10:13:18 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON - The Senate dealt an election-year defeat Wednesday to a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, rejecting pleas from President Bush (news - web sites) and fellow conservatives that the measure was needed to safeguard an institution that has flourished for thousands of years.
The vote was 48-50, 12 short of the 60 needed to keep the measure alive.
"I would argue that the future of our country hangs in the balance because the future of marriage hangs in the balance," said Sen. Rick Santorum, a leader in the fight to approve the measure. "Isn't that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?"
But Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle said there was no "urgent need" to amend the Constitution. "Marriage is a sacred union between men and women. That is what the vast majority of Americans believe. It's what virtually all South Dakotans believe. It's what I believe."
"In South Dakota, we've never had a single same sex marriage and we won't have any," he said. "It's prohibited by South Dakota law as it is now in 38 other states. There is no confusion. There is no ambiguity."
Supporters conceded in advance they would fail to win the support needed to advance the measure, and vowed to renew their efforts.
"I don't think it's going away after this vote," Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said Tuesday on the eve of the test vote. "I think the issue will remain alive," he added.
Whatever its future in Congress, there also were signs that supporters of the amendment intended to use it in the campaign already unfolding.
"The institution of marriage is under fire from extremist groups in Washington, politicians, even judges who have made it clear that they are willing to run over any state law defining marriage," Republican senatorial candidate John Thune says in a radio commercial airing in South Dakota. "They have done it in Massachusetts and they can do it here," adds Thune, who is challenging Daschle for his seat.
"Thune's ad suggests that some are using this amendment more to protect the Republican majority than to protect marriage," said Dan Pfeiffer, a spokesman for Daschle's campaign.
At issue was an amendment providing that marriage within the United States "shall consist only of a man and a woman."
A second sentence said that neither the federal nor any state constitution "shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman." Some critics argue that the effect of that provision would be to ban civil unions, and its inclusion in the amendment complicated efforts by GOP leaders to gain support from wavering Republicans.
Bush urged the Republican-controlled Congress last February to approve a constitutional amendment, saying it was needed to stop judges from changing the definition of the "most enduring human institution."
Bush's fall rival, Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) of Massachusetts, opposes the amendment, as does his vice presidential running mate, Sen. John Edwards (news - web sites) of North Carolina. Both men skipped the vote.
The odds have never favored passage in the current Congress, in part because many Democrats oppose it, but also because numerous conservatives are hesitant to overrule state prerogatives on the issue.
At the same time, Republican strategists contend the issue could present a difficult political choice to Democrats, who could be pulled in one direction by polls showing that a majority of voters oppose gay marriage, and pulled in the other by homosexual voters and social liberals who support it. An Associated Press-Ipsos poll taken in March showed about four in 10 support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and half oppose it.
Democrats said that Bush and Republicans were using the issue to distract attention from the war in Iraq (news - web sites) and the economy.
"The issue is not ripe. It is not needed. It's a waste of our time. We should be dealing with other issues," said Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut.
But Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said a decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court had thrust the matter upon the Senate. The ruling opened the way for same sex marriages in the state, and Frist predicted the impact would eventually be far broader.
"Same-sex marriage will be exported to all 50 states. The question is no longer whether the Constitution will be amended. The only question is who will amend it and how will it be amended," he added.
He said the choice was "activist judges" on the one hand and lawmakers on the other.
Because the primary duty of the State is to promote the common good. You can claim that these things don't serve to promote the common good if you want. I don't have any objection to either in principle.
Senate votes are at http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_108_2.htm
House votes are at href=http://clerk.house.gov/legisAct/votes.html
Here's the Senate vote for this one. (Note the two Johns were the only senators not voting)
YEAs ---48
Alexander (R-TN) Allard (R-CO) Allen (R-VA) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burns (R-MT) Byrd (D-WV) Chambliss (R-GA) Cochran (R-MS) Coleman (R-MN) Cornyn (R-TX) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) DeWine (R-OH) Dole (R-NC) Domenici (R-NM) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Fitzgerald (R-IL) Frist (R-TN) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Kyl (R-AZ) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) McConnell (R-KY) Miller (D-GA) Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-NE) Nickles (R-OK) Roberts (R-KS) Santorum (R-PA) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-OR) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Talent (R-MO) Thomas (R-WY) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA)
NAYs ---50
Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Breaux (D-LA) Campbell (R-CO) Cantwell (D-WA) Carper (D-DE) Chafee (R-RI) Clinton (D-NY) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Corzine (D-NJ) Daschle (D-SD) Dayton (D-MN) Dodd (D-CT) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Graham (D-FL) Harkin (D-IA) Hollings (D-SC) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Johnson (D-SD) Kennedy (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Landrieu (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (D-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) McCain (R-AZ) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sarbanes (D-MD) Schumer (D-NY) Snowe (R-ME) Stabenow (D-MI) Sununu (R-NH) Wyden (D-OR)
Not Voting - 2
Edwards (D-NC) Kerry (D-MA)
After 16 years of public school education I doubt if that would make much difference to them. Most young people have drank the Kool-Aid of the NEA/homosexual agenda they have been fed since kindergarten. They are both solidly, economic conservative heterosexuals, but when it comes to homosexuality they just see it as a 'not my business what they do' issue. And I don't think they are in the minority in their age group. I told my wife if the homosexuals would just sit back and wait a few years they would get everything they want without a fight. Their problem is they are totally into immediate gratification, as in I want it NOW. And sadly with the help of activist judges and the USSC they are getting it now.
On an up-or-down vote on the amendment, R's would probably have lost Smith, Specter, DeWine, Allen, Warner, Hagel, Stevens, and maybe more.
Only justification for the State is to protect rights. The common good is an empty concept altogether.
No they don't. On the contrary they advocate against such things and expend tax dollars to say it's bad. They are teaching something that is probably best left to parents. Nonetheless it is "in the public" schools.
We have many weak Senators but look at how many took a stand. They could have run for the tall grass on this. Look at this from the long-term view, my friends. This was but one skirmish in the fight about what America is going to be. The other side can only force America to accept gay marriage not through the democratic process but though judges imposing it against the wishes of the people. When they do that they will win the battle but lose the war. So far its looking a lot better from this observer's perspective than the media has led us to believe.
No, good news for our black robed rulers
AMEN......the black robed lawless judges will continue to " rule AGAINST" the Constitution!!!!!
Nope. Sen. Smith (one of my senators) is on board. He spoke in favor on the Senate floor the other day.
We should all remember these words. When homosexual marriage comes to South Dakota (if the USSC makes it a Consitutional right), then we ought to all remember that these words came from an alleged leader who is supposed to have vision.
Byrd (D-WV)
Miller (D-GA) (Not really a Democrat.)
Nelson (D-NE)
HA! ... Bryd voted for it
"black robed rulers..."
Where the constitution doesn't say, the judges have to interpret based upon what's already there. There's nothing in the constitution that says marriage is between a man and a woman. Granted, there's also nothing that says marriage is between a man and a horse. So here you have millions of people denied what they perceive as rights for no constitutionally mandated reason. What's a judge to do?
LOL! CNN news on Rush's newsbreak only named the four.
They also said 50 "yes" votes. That's probably wrong, too.
;-)
Four RINOS; Collins, Snowe, McCaniniac, Sununu. All the rest were Rats with the exception of Byrd, Miller, and Nelson.
Ooooooooooo HE WAS IN DC!?!?!?!?!!
I had a feeling Byrd would vote yes. He may be a scoundrel, but even he can see that something ain't right with what the courts are doing on this.
Liberalism is about lawsuits and coerced virtue. In a funny sort of way, I have this warm glow inside relishing the fact the Senate's two no-shows happen to be wealthy lawyers. Mind you, a class that happens to be looked upon by most of the American people with disdain.
Six "Republicans" voted against. Three Democrats voted for.
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.