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.

[Elsie]

What some people don't get is that there's no changing the mind of someone who doesn't like gay guys/gals. It ain't gonna happen.

SURE it is!

Just keep pounding away (groan) in the schools, media, print, about how BAD anyone is who oppose the Agenda and how 'GOOD and Tolerant' are those who support it.

[Elsie]

I would love to have McCain voted out of office. He does not represent my views.

I'm assuming, from your screenname, you are actually IN the state to be able to do this?

[Dominic Harr]

Otherwise, work for your issues and demand that conservative politics be the bedrock of the party.

"Libertarians" believe in things like 'non-initiation of force'. So I definitely am not a libertarian.

I was in the R party, during Reagan and thru the 'Contract with America. The R party came to the majority by avoiding 'social engineering' ideas and sticking with 'politically conservative issues like govt accountability, etc. You know, the 'Contract with America'. Now, the social C political Ls in the R party are using the majority we gave them to spend like crazy, grow govt and push 'social engineering' laws like this.

The party I voted for in '94 has become the party I voted *against* in '94.

I'm going to write a family member in, this fall. Unless the Rs do something completely unexpected between here and there.

[AZBear]

Yes I am...I am an active member of the Republican party in my state. I have met all my Congressman except for 2....McCain and Kolbe. They do not show up to Republican functions. I remember 2 years ago during the State party convention they were the only 2 of our Washington contingent that were not there. I promise that I will do all within my power to try to get McCain out of office. I do not support him. I have a friend Spiff who is helping me to get more involved. I also do not want McCain as President.

[Dominic Harr]

Homosexual monogamy is cultural Marxism...

???

Please, explain that to me? I've never heard that before . . .

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

I am a political Conservative. Conservative as in 'careful', as in "That's a conservative estimate". Careful with our money. Careful with defense (i.e. always stay strong). Careful with solutions (avoiding knee-jerk reactions). Careful to keep govt as small as possible.

Socially, I believe in live and let live. Social engineering is not, in my opinion, one of the mandates of the federal govt.

You know, a 'Reagan' voter. A 'Contract with America' voter. The folks who originally gave the R party this majority.

But don't worry -- the current R party is not for any of that! I guess I'm no longer an R, since they now are for big govt, high spending and social engineering.

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

Interesting -- do 'objectivists' believe that the federal govt should have the power to regulate who can and can't spend their lives together as partners?

[Dominic Harr]

Such a place will never exist.

Such a place (a 'fiscally conservative' place) may never exist again because of folks like the ones pushing this.

Because everyone seems to want smaller, less intrusive govt until it comes to their own biases and predjudices. And then ya'll turn 'Liberal', asking for social engineering laws to regulate who spends their life together.

That's why I oppose judges changing the 5,000 year old definition of marriage.

Um -- I thought the issue here was, the current letter of the law allows states to make up their own mind? And ya'll are pushing for the federal govt to take power over this? Hence the 'constitutional ammendment'?

Fascinating. In arguing *for* social engineering changes, you claim the other side is doing the social engineering. You guys want to change the law, cuz the letter of the law doesn't favor your social biases.

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

You're kidding, right? This law would have the fed gov saying, "This sort of life's union we will offically sanction, That sort of life's union we do not." Pure social engineering.

You are pushing for a law guaranteeing that the federal govt will favor a certain type of 'personal relationship' for the good of socieity.

How much more obvious can that be?

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Socially, I believe in live and let live.

You are a cultural Marxist?

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

Interesting -- do 'objectivists' believe that the federal govt should have the power to regulate who can and can't spend their lives together as partners?

That is not the issue and you know it... Typical Marxist double-speak...

[Antoninus]

I don't care if it doesn't pass the Senate this time around. Get these losers on record. That is absolutely KEY.

[Spiff]

The R party came to the majority by avoiding 'social engineering' ideas and sticking with 'politically conservative issues like govt accountability, etc. You know, the 'Contract with America'. Now, the social C political Ls in the R party are using the majority we gave them to spend like crazy, grow govt and push 'social engineering' laws like this.

You've got it backwards. This Amendment is designed to counter the social engineering being attempted by the left. Redefining the traditional family and marriage is some of the worst social engineering possible. The well-financed and organized gay activists are shopping the most liberal state courts and judges in order to find the best venue to enact through legal precedent the social engineering that they would never be able to via legislation. This Amendment attempts to protect the core, the fiber of our free society from the latest attempt at social engineering of the left. Please understand that.

[Antoninus]

The Constitution is supposed to be about government behavior, not personal behavior. The attempt to change/outlaw one form of personal behavior was thumpingly reversed in a little more than a decade. Why do you want to change the focus of the Constitution?

The Constitution is our social contract--the agreed upon rules under which our society operates. The only ones changing anything are those groups which use the courts to ram through society-changing novelties, like homosexual marriage, without regard for what society actually wants.

The Marriage Protection Amendment simply sets limits on what we, as a society, are willing to recognize as a legitimate marriage. No homo-marriage. No-polygamous marriage. No incestuous marriage. Period. Ten years ago, the need for such an amendment would have been thought silly. Today, in the aftermath of judicially-mandated fake marriages, the need is obvious and pressing.

When the Federal Marriage Amendment passes--perhaps not this session, but the constant irritation of the homo-normalization lobby ensures that it WILL pass--it will never be overturned.

[Antoninus]

i am against abortion but you don't amend the constitution ever to take away rights.

An amendment can't take away rights you don't have. I have no right to marry my sister. Bruce has no right to marry his butt-buddy, Steve. This amendment is to prevent the government (ie, the judiciary) from imposing new and novel definitions of the institution of marriage on an unwilling populace.

Get with the program, junior.

[BritExPatInFla]

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.

Yeah, how about polygamy? I'm suuuurrre glad that Very few heterosexual (couples or singles) are promiscous, or unfatihful, or involved in child abuse cases. And thank goodness heterosexuals don't practice polygamy, look at the guy out in AZ that's on the ten most wanted list, oh wait, don't look at him, he has multiple WIVES and goes after little GIRLS.

Look, in trying to demonize homosexuals to the point of criminalizing it, the anti-gay, pro-hetero (Whatever they want to be called) lobby is driving people that don't feel threatened one way or the other on the issue away. There are just as many screwed up straight families as gay. Now go ahead and trot out the AFA studies and Jimmy Dobson preachings about how wrong I am.

[Joan Kerrey]

It has become imperative that we put a stake in the ground with these militant anti-family gays, and thereby protect the foundation of our society -- the family.

While it's true that there are militant gays there are militants this and militants that everywhere and somehow we survive and society continues. I'm much more concerned with militants who are out to kill us than militants who perform weird sex acts. I simply don't believe that people who are different than us are a threat. My marriage simply does not depend on the actions of others. I'm not threatened and think there is room in our society for those who are or think differently while doing no harm.

[Joan Kerrey]

"The future of civilization is at stake here."
Due to 1%(the number which most people here cite)of the people?

Try a little humor when reading some of my posts. Ofcourse I don't think the future of civilization is at stake via the gay marriage effort. Anyone who feels threatened by the sex acts of a few doesn't have much of a marriage.

[Dominic Harr]

You are a cultural Marxist?

Interesting -- a 'Marxist' is someone who believes govt should control things "For the good of society".

Much like a Federal ban on gay marriages!

That's why ya'll are called, "Social Conservatives, Politically Liberal".

Me, I'm Socially Liberal, Politically Conservative. Socially, I don't care what others do, as long as they don't directly impact me and mine. Politically, I am for smaller govt, strong defense, etc. I do *NOT* believe in using the power of the federal govt to make social policy like 'marriage laws'. Cuz it's no different than using the power of the federal govt to do any other social engineering.

You, my friend, are the "Cultural Marxist". If you are pushing for the power of the federal govt to intervene in a 'social' thing like marriages.

[conservative blonde]

Don't forget the battle is the Lord's. It is He Who will decide the demise of the USA. If Americans would ever get back to real belief in God's Word, the gays, abortion and liberalism would all go away. I know I am talking about the 1,000 years after the tribulation but we probably are closer to that than we know.

[Wuli]

I am not failing to give the "GOP" money.

I am not giving money to the national GOP campaign committees and particularly not to the GOP Senate committee (as a party-wide committee, they have no party-base legitimacy to interfere in state GOP primary elections - as they are doing in Rhode Island now). I am, instead, giving to individual GOP candidates, directly.

[TChris]

One of Bush's Biggest Mistakes (BBM): Letting Arlen Specter keep his job.

[sine_nomine]

That's a good approach.

[sine_nomine]

It was not "letting." Bush was behind Arlen 100%, including the point when Spectre could have been kept out of the chairmanship of Judiciary, a very powerful post.

Bush plays games. He feints to the right while supporting the Left.

No more RINO presidents.