Posted on 05/18/2006 2:49:31 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. Senate panel advanced a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage on Thursday as the committee chairman shouted "good riddance" to a Democrat who walked out of the tense session.
"If you want to leave, good riddance," The Senate Judiciary Chairman, Republican Arlen Specter, told Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold, who refused to participate because, he said, the meeting was not sufficiently open to the public.
"I've enjoyed your lecture too. See you later, Mr. Chairman," Feingold told the Pennsylvania senator before storming out of the private room where the meeting took place.
The testy exchange highlighted tensions over the proposal, which seeks to amend the U.S. Constitution to prevent states from recognizing same-sex marriages.
The measure passed 10-8 on a party-line vote. Specter said he voted for the amendment because he thought it should be taken up by the full Senate, even though he does not back it.
The gay-marriage ban is one of several hot-button social issues Republicans are raising to rally conservative voters ahead of November's congressional elections.
Because the measure seeks to change the Constitution, it must pass both houses of Congress by a two-thirds majority and then be approved by at least 38 states.
The Senate is expected to take up the bill in early June.
Joran Vanderwhatever
I thought he was found innocent and they are after someone else.
Lots of senators who oppose gay marriage, or at least who do so in front of the cameras, will oppose this amendment unless and until the Supreme Court rules that other states must recognize Massachusetts marriages. Until that happens, all this does is stop states like Massachusetts and California from governing themselves on this, and that's a bridge too far for senators who believe in federalism.
My only question is why did it take this long? It shoud have been fast tracked through committee right after the '04 elections, when there was more support, and it was fresh in everyone's minds. This is more BS posturing prior to an election, when there are REAL problems that need attention. What's next last minute anti-cloning and abortion bills? Guess what congress, your games are very transparent.
Every society that has embraced homosexuality has collapsed.
I don't see the Netherland's falling apart or England for that matter. Keep in mind, I am on your side, but for us to have any credibility we have to make statements that are reasonable.
It's time to smoke the skunks out. Believe me, most of the pro-gay contingent don't want to have to take a public stand in an election year. It matters a lot. And it matters to the few FReepers who scream that it doesn't matter and is a "waste of time." Their belligerence betrays their true sentiment. They're pro-gay marriage all the way.
Maybe it is not as important as safety of the country to some. The only thing that confuses me about this issue or any like it is aren't we as conservatives supposed to want smaller govenment involvement not more. Why not just let this a state issue. That is the way conservatives use to be.
There is not even a 1 percent chance of passage.
I wouldn't necessarily call some of the very extreme points of view here conservative. Most stay away from these threads because as you saw, either you accept their position or you have to be by definition pro-gay marriage. Well, I'm not pro-gay marriage and will vote against it in my state. Having said that, I agree with some voices of reason here that it does belong in my state, not as part of the federal Constitution, at least not now. If the USSC determines that all states must recognize a marriage legalized in one state, then I will consider an amendment.
As far as other gay/lesbian activities, I really don't care. Two consenting adults have the same right to privacy regardless of their preferences. And for those like me who are concerned about the spread of AIDS, they should be happy that more of them are engaging in monogamous relationships.
I'm reminded of the Terri Schiavo wars. If anyone believed it was a state issue, and should be left in the judicial realm, he was immediately labeled as a Terri hater and simply wanted her murdered. Again, there are a lot here who in reality know little about conservatism.
I notice some of the keywords on this thread are pretty snarky and uncalled for..I wonder if anything will be done about it?
The Roman Empire thrived when homosexuality was acceptable, it wasn't until it turned to Christianity that it began to crumble.
I don't know what inane, liberal college you learned your history lessons from but if you think homosexuality is good and normal for a nation you are as sick and depraved as the people that practice it.
It would be really nice if some on this forum could carry on an intellectual debate without ad hominem attacks. FYI, 476 AD is a date commonly given for the fall of the Roman Empire. Many reasons are given, including the rise of Christianity, financial woes and barbarian intrusians. Of course breaking it up into two regions didn't help. Could not see where homosexuality had any impact, and if it did, it did so under Christianity.
The game has not changed, we face the same enemy, same challenges. The Beast never dies!
I hope we can agree Jim is absolutely right. :) RD.
Well, there was no truth that I could see in accusing the poster of being sick and depraved for merely correcting the record of Roman history. These things should be debatable, and not a cause for insults.
As for Sodom and Gomorrah, I'm not sure if that was one of the many metaphors in the early Bible or not. And while I understand you feelings about homosexuality, many here on the forum are not as strident, and within some bounds, willing to simply accept them and not try to drive the few remaining into the Democrat's big tent.
I guess we can agree to disagree. I happen to believe that the the Word of God is truth and not metaphor. God bless.
Had he known the cameras wouldn't be there, he'd have done something more important like go fishing or something.
OR
Maybe Sen. Russell Feingold is a queer.
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.