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.
Isn't that plus protecting the borders, coining money, and raising an Army about the only real roles of the state (federally speaking)?
Cambell's retiring, so that's good.
Agreed. A complete waste of good time and money.
And this is the only post I will make on this topic.
Government has no business marrying people anyway. The governmental purpose of a marriage is to allow two people to become a joint partnership in conducting business as opposed to "sole proprietorship", i.e. being single and having your own income.
Since marriage is, for the most part, a religious institution, government has no business sanctioning it. Let people get married in the church of their choice (and I had a Christian marriage at the Riviera Hotel in Las Vegas before we received the sacrament of matrimony at our parish church.) If the church does gay marriages and thinks gay marriage is in line with its theology, fine. If not, do what you want, but don't call yourselves married because the church did not and will not marry you.
Or, let the couple go to the local JP or county clerk's office to get certified to be a joint partnership. That's what you do in business anyway.
Then let government issue them a certificate recognizing that joining as a joint partnership and allow them to conduct business.
I just have a huge problem with government mixing with religion. We have enough problems with government telling us what and what not to do and how to do it. Live and let live.
I agree.
Specter wants reelection. Good for him. I guess he knows what side his bread is buttered on. McCain is a surprise.
Thanks for your positive viewpoint!
I agree. This issue is far from over, and the war against marriage has just begun. We must keep up the fight to preserve it!
Now if we can hold these senators to "states rights" to ban abortion.
There was an article posted here about how McCain was opposing this. He's getting nutty again.
"It is conservative to preserve tradition and central to tradition is keeping the "little platoons" that make society run intact."
I agree, tradition does a lot to keep a society running. However, I don't see gay marriage as the limiting factor in the survival of a nation. As long as they have to go to work every day, build widgets, pay taxes on their income, pay bills, etc., they are productive members of the community. If they start killing people, raping, robbing, or allow their dogs to bark all night and keep everyone up, they aren't.
Regarding hedonism: for gay men, I tend to agree. I don't see them as being all that in need of gay marriage - for the most part. For women, the opposite is more likely. Gay women tend to hook up with other women because they feel that men are incapable of providing what they need emotionally - for the most part. Either way, as long as Britany Spears is allowed to get married on Monday and divorced on Tuesday, I think a gay couple that's been together for who knows how long should be given a break.
Good point! Funny how that works, eh?
[...]
http://www.polygamyinfo.com/plygmedia%2000%2051enquirer.htm
Thanks for the links, bookmarked.
PreambleThe preamble sets forth the purpose of the Constitution.We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
As for Hilary Clinton, she's simply abusing the term.
The exhaustive treatment of the proper responsibilities of State and Church here is the best and most concise that I've seen on-line.
If all they want to do is live together, it doesn't affect me. But they are bothered by the absence of approval they will never get from me. That is the issue that is creating the conflict in this country. For all their talk about diversity and tolerance, gays want to force us to say their lifestyle is a good a choice as the heterosexual one. And that is where I part company with them.
Sorry. He spoke in favor of his amendment to the amendment. I'm pretty sure he would have voted no on the Allard proposal.
Marriage is not a religious institution. It predates the Old and New Testament. Genesis 2, when the first couple was married, happened before mankind even needed a Savior.
If marriage were a religious institution, then non-Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists wouldn't bother to marry. But they all do. Because the instinct to marry is a part of our nature. Marriage is a "natural" institution, not religious like Communion.
Government recognizes marriage because of very real legal issues that arise when two people come together. There really is no other alternative.
So government, by continuing to use the definition of marriage that it always has, is not "mixing religion and government" unless every government on earth does throughout human history does. All we're asking is that government continue to do what it has always done - nothing.
A fox reporter just too a jab a chenny.
He reported on Leaky Leahey's comment on why chenny was uncharacteristicly silent on this issue.
The reporter commented on cheney's PRE-MASS comments that this should be left to the states.
The between the lines effort to imply chenny APRROVES of his daughter's homosexual lifestyle choice.
I also agree. and if judges were not run amok, it would even be unnecessary. Second amendment says one thing, yet it is in terrible danger. These days, the law-of-the-land comes from these judges. And the only way to stop them is to spell it out. And some times, even that isn't good enough - see Massachusetts. Sad.
Does "individual liberty" trump an individual's obligation to help provide for "the common defense"?
Protecting individual liberty is a good, but it is not the first principle of the State.
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.