Gay Marriage Ban Short of Votes in Senate

The Washington Times ^ | Jun 5, 2006 | LAURIE KELLMAN

[kellynla]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush and congressional Republicans are aiming the political spotlight this week on efforts to ban gay marriage, with events at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue - all for a constitutional amendment with scant chance of passage but wide appeal among social conservatives.

"Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society," Bush said in his weekly radio address. "Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all."

The president was to make further remarks Monday in favor of the amendment as the Senate opened three days of debate. Neither chamber, though, is likely to pass the amendment by the two-thirds majority required to send it to the states - three quarters of which would then have to approve it.

Many Republicans support the measure because they say traditional marriage strengthens society; others don't but concede the reality of election-year politics.

"Marriage between one man and one woman does a better job protecting children better than any other institution humankind has devised," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn. "As such, marriage as an institution should be protected, not redefined."

But Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said he will vote against it on the floor but allowed it to survive his panel in part to give the Republicans the debate party leaders believe will pay off on Election Day. Specter has chosen a different battle with the Bush administration this week - a hearing Tuesday on the ways the FBI spies on journalists who publish classified information.

[DungeonMaster]

Or maybe you your original statement was just wrong, and needs an amendment.

[durasell]

Then I may be wrong. It's happened before, will probably happen again.

[George W. Bush]

The worst amendment of the constutituion is the one that said the senate was directly elected by the people and not by the statehouses. Why don't we repeal that one.

On this one, I agree. Not that it didn't have some downsides too. Our senate is pretty aristocratic alreadly. I'd say repeal it and replace it with term limits for the Senate of two terms maximum. I'd also be happy with one term only. Or two four-year terms.

[conserv13]

Social liberalism and economic liberalism go hand in hand.

That is why the USA is so in debt under President Bush, who favors the amendment.

[Aker]

"It has everything to do with providing the most nurturing environment possible for children."

Why not start issuing licences for parents then?

Although, there are licences for foster parents in many countries, but it doesn't really do the trick does it? Children still get abused... are all foster parents gay?

There are good and bad people everywhere.

[Help!]

That was exactly my point. The government got involved in paying for social security and health care. Whatever. The government decided smoking was causing a lot of health care expense so "let's ban it." If the government (read taxpayers) WASN'T paying for the healthcare, then it wouldn't be in the business of legislating unhealthy behaviors.

[George W. Bush]

Socially, I believe in 'live and let live'. If someone is not directly harming others with their actions, then the federal govt has no right to regulate that behavior.

Yes, they do. There are all sorts of consensual relationships that are forbidden or regulated.

You're not a Republican, I think. You're a Libertarian. So are several others on this thread. Republicans have never pretended to be libertines.

[durasell]

There was a plan to have children come complete with instruction manuals, but women giving birth complained. Damned spiral binding!

[Elsie]

That snake marriage was one of convenience.

I heard that the viper was so poor,
he didn't have a pit to hiss in.

[Aker]

So when will the usa vote for ban on smoking, drinking, walking on the street or any other unhealthy behaviour? :D

[mewzilla]

You want gubmint involved in families? Holy crap, no!

Marriage licenses are issued by the state. I'd say that gives them a dog in the hunt :)

[Joan Kerrey]

(ie. the taxes I pay, the parking permits I get, etc.)

Hmmmm, good point. Perhaps we could add a marriage continuation tax each year. We'll look into it.

[Help!]

OK, How about polygamy. A recent issue of the Advocate had as its cover story Homosexuals and Polygamy with some provacative accompanying photos. Where stand you on polygamy? Very few homosexual (at least male) couples are monogamous.

[durasell]

Maybe, but I want the government's dog far back in the pack.

[Elsie]

 

I'll bet the uniforms are FABULOUS.

 

Not really...

 

Genesis 13:13
  Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the LORD.
 

Genesis 18:20-21
 20.  Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous
 21.  that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."

Genesis 19:4-7
 4.  Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house. 
 5.  They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
 6.  Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him
 7.  and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing.

Psa. 12:8 8 The wicked freely strut about when what is vile is honored among men.

Isaiah 3:9
   The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to them! They have brought disaster upon themselves.

 More?

Ezekiel 16:49-50
 49.  "`Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
 50.  They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

 

---

---

But there IS hope!!!

---

---

 

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

 9.  Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
 10.  nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 
 11.  And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

 

---

---

If you could NOT change, you would be in most pitiful shape.....

Not really...

[DBeers]

I have sincere doubts that a "marriage" between two men or two women will be legitimate in the eyes of God.

But from a political/philosophical perspective, I am against any government endorsement of, or involvement with, the institution of marriage -- which includes the government taking a pro-active stance on the "definition" of marriage (as with the constitutional amendment in question).

Well -Now, that you no longer conflate the spiritual aspect of marriage with the physical -how about admitting that the government can in no way legislate love and as such can not premise any merit and accommodation upon it...

Further that government can legitimately foster that which it considers legitimately beneficial AND has done so historically with regards to marriage WITH the rational basis of such privilege and accommodation being PROCREATION...

IF you wish to turn reality on its head and ignore tradition, conventional wisdom, common law, and enacted law THEN I suggest you become an activist judge and pray that the FMA never passes...

IF one the other hand you simply wish to remain a "conservative" member of the electorate I suggest you petition your legislature and attempt to form consensus on your opinion of what should and should not be in regards to marriage.

[mewzilla]

Maybe, but I want the government's dog far back in the pack.

Then stand by for legalized polygamy, polyandry, incest, statutory rape...

There are reasons why government regulates marriage and they're good ones.