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.

[youthgonewild]

You must be one of those well respected scientists who believe that homosexuals replicate themselves through binary fission, not recrutiment.

Yea what a fool that guy is. Those recruiters won't leave me alone. Ever since I stopped at their booth at the mall to ask for directions, they've been mailing me, calling me, telling me of the benefits I'll accrue after 20 years of being gay, LOL.

[Dominic Harr]

Getting the government involved in the endorsement of a sacred institution is the definition of liberalism.

Exactly.

[Dominic Harr]

Can you even imagine a place with gay "marriage" being fiscally conservative?

Yes, in fact -- if such a place existed, they would certainly not have the govt tell people who they can spend their life with.

But I don't think I know of a place that is actually 'fiscally conservative' anymore. Do you?

I'm a political C. That means I don't believe in social engineering by the federal govt.

Social Cs who are Political Ls are what dominates the party now. So I am certainly not an R anymore. I *was*, back during the 'contract with america' days. But that was about "politics", not telling people what is "for the good of society".

[Dominic Harr]

You're not a Republican, I think.

I *was* a Republican, back in the 'Contract with America' days. Back when the party was about political Conservatism.

Now, the party is Socially Conservative, Politically Liberal. So I am certainly not an R anymore. They finally shook me from the tree with the immigration issue, and now this.

I'm a political conservative. Which most folks are. And the Social C, Political Ls who are pushing this are destroying the R party. At least, they have chased away the group who gave you the majority in 1994 -- Political Cs.

By far, most folks are "live and let live". If the Rs are going to become the party of social causes, they have lost political conservatives as surely as the Ds have.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

ModerateGOOPer = Rino = traitor. I need say no more.

Yep. I might just sit this election out and vote for an American Independent, Conservative Party, or something if we don't get a vote on it in the full Senate... If my Republican Senator votes against, he is toast...

When the national senate campaign calls me for money, I will tell them I don't consort with gay prostitutes...

[George W. Bush]

Then you're a conservative. Unless you're a social liberal in which case you're still more of a libertarian.

For better or worse, both parties will always adopt social policy positions. If you can't bear that, go Libertarian. Otherwise, work for your issues and demand that conservative politics be the bedrock of the party.

That's what I try to do.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

By far, most folks are "live and let live".

Homosexual monogamy is cultural Marxism...

You are a political conservative? Yeah, right... so much for the Republican party...

I have never said I was a conservative; a right wing objectivist, maybe...

[Torie]

This thread has gotten you active again, hasn't it? :) Pity that most of your interloquitors really aren't putting you through your paces very well.

[durasell]

Here's a better solution. Let's leave the word marriage alone. The guy's old man beats the crap out of him, there are two solutions. Get tougher and beat the crap out of the old man or call the cops and then make your own way in the world after you testify at his trial.



That's probably what will happen.

Regarding the old man beating up the kid -- it went on for years. Now in this new and enlightened age, the kids are simply shown the door. A tough thing, but the way the world works. Many communities simply don't want gay guys living there.

[Tribune7]

LOL

[gathersnomoss]

Smoke screen issue. WHAT ABOUT THE ILLEGALS????

[gathersnomoss]

"No batteries required"

[gathersnomoss]

That's what happens when you end up in the wrong hood.

[dogbyte12]

This is a joke. There are not 67 votes in the Senate. It's just crappy political theater. It's insulting. If you have 63 or so votes lined up, then maybe you go forward, trying to squeeze a few folks like Landrieu, Nelson, etc. But this is just pandering for nothing.

It's a way for Senators to go to their base and said I was involved in a futile effort that I knew wasn't going to pass, and I ignored taxes, the border, etc just in order to make you think I was doing something even though I knew it was going to fail.

Politics is the art of the possible. I want everything done that can get 50 votes. Immigration needs to be on the top of the list. McCain and them need a smack down. But there are not 67 votes for this, and they are just wasting our time.

As Jonah Goldberg said at NRO, this is just election year crap, to paraphrase him. The party ran hard on marriage in 2004, got sworn in on January 2005, and now wait til election season to do this? How seriously should anybody take them? Does anybody doubt that the same thing is going to happen again? After this loses, they will rally the base, might even get more "republicans" elected, then ignore the issue once again until summer 2008.

[George W. Bush]

Hey, where'd the libertarians go?

I dunno. Back to DU or a Log Cabin forum to gloat?

You have to admit, they were as good at infiltrating as any liberal could be. But as the argument heated up, you could tell they were, from a conservative viewpoint, politically illiterate. And it's because they were liberal. The same way we would be at DU, making mistakes we wouldn't even be aware of. For instance, I infiltrated DU once back when quite a few of us would go over to torment them and I lasted only a few days. But I went one step too far in advocating gun ownership as the great equalizer between criminals and women or elderly people. I had seen a few others over there arguing a weaker form of the same argument. At any rate, that was apparently an argument that is never ever made in liberal circles (because, stupid me, it advocates shooting rapists and robbers) so I was outed. They suspected (correctly) that I owned a large caliber handgun and, faster than you can empty your Glock clip, I was ejected toute suite after being called a freeper. A damned freeper, as I recall it.

There's a sort of political literacy and acculturation to these forums, it seems. You have to 'smell' right. And there are ways we couch our arguments on both sides that are within the mainstream of political opinion, whether liberal or conservative.

Actually, I don't care if they were suspended or banned. If management wants them back after a timeout, that's just fine with me. But I think management has been very clear in the past that FR is not a hate site but it also is not a site for liberals to advocate liberal social policies either and spend their time here twitting and annoying conservative activists. There are plenty of other sites where people can advocate liberalism.

We are, after all, an activist site for the GOP. There are some things we don't need to debate at great length. Gay marriage is for the Dims to advocate, not us.

[jwalsh07]

:-}

I figured they went to get the 'A' players. But they never came back. And then you showed up.

Now I am very, very suspicious. (gap toothed grin)

Bilbray or what'shername? And by how much?

I'm checking your bonafides. See if you're still as good as ever.

Wife sleeping very early tonight. Not feeling well but nothing serious. So here I am, loaded for bear, or wolves, or annoying squirrels. I can handle any of 'em.

Did you know that in 16 of the 18 open seats for Congresscritter that Bush won by more than 59-41. That's a high bar for the dem wannabes, no?

[George W. Bush]

Very common up until the early 80s.

I'm not real young and I don't recall it.

Probably the most famous case of it is Little Richard -- his father tied him to the bed and tried to whip it out of him.

You mean back in the Forties or early Fifties?

I'd remind you how often homosexuals have been proven to have manufactured completely false and libelous accusations, burned their houses or vehicles or caused physical harm to themselves so they can play the victim. It's common enough to be considered characteristic of the group. You should hear a few of the whoppers a couple of these guys have told me, obviously complete lies.

[jwalsh07]

I wouldn't suspend or ban any poster that doesn't leave a stench behind them. Hell, I want to convert them!

[ModerateGOOPer]

Libertarian does not equal liberal. It is, infact, the philosophy most in tune with our Founders.

Conservative should not have to equal statist.

IMO, Conservatives should support both personal and economic freedom, not just one.

[puroresu]

####Yes, in fact -- if such a place existed, they would certainly not have the govt tell people who they can spend their life with.####

Such a place will never exist. It's why every place you can think of where there's strong support for gay "marriage" (Holland, Sweden, Canada...) is also very socialistic, has lots of gun control, speech codes, etc.

BTW, how does opposing gay "marriage" have anything to do with who someone spends their life with?

####But I don't think I know of a place that is actually 'fiscally conservative' anymore. Do you?####

I'll have to agree with you on that one, though the places that are socially liberal tend to be the most socialistic.

####I'm a political C. That means I don't believe in social engineering by the federal govt.####

That's why I oppose judges changing the 5,000 year old definition of marriage. It's social engineering. And once we have gay "marriage", we'll have gay adoption, gay school curricula, hate speech laws, churches being punished by government for refusing to marry gays, more anti-discrimination laws telling people who they can hire or who they can rent their upstairs bedroom to. We'll have laws forcing restaurant owners to allow gay kissing on their property (they just passed this in England, where pubs are now required by law to permit this). We'll have private clubs membership practices being reviewed by government. We'll have to spend more taxpayers' money to provide benefits to gay couples. It'll be an explosion of government power and social engineering.