Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gay Marriage Ban Short of Votes in Senate
The Washington Times ^ | Jun 5, 2006 | LAURIE KELLMAN

Posted on 06/05/2006 10:00:29 AM PDT by 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.

(Excerpt) Read more at ap.washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government
KEYWORDS: 109th; 2006trolls; arlensphincter; demagoguery; distraction; diversion; dogandponyshow; evasion; flimflam; fma; homosexualagenda; homosexuals; irrelevancy; lookingbusy; manbehindthecurtain; marriage; pandering; razzledazzle; socialliberals
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 321-333 next last
To: linda_22003

The fact that the gay marriage thing isn't getting much traction (except among those whom it really seems to bother) is fascinating.

My prediction for the upcoming elections: All the issues will be bread and butter issues. Those things that directly impact the lives of the voters.


61 posted on 06/05/2006 12:20:42 PM PDT by durasell (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Old_Mil
Your 'proper vehicle' would eliminate taxation of inheritance for a miniscule percentage of gay people.

I guess you've not heard of probate taxes. Are they not on your talking points?

62 posted on 06/05/2006 12:21:17 PM PDT by lugsoul (Livin' in fear is just another way of dying before your time. - Mike Cooley)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: pec

Agreed. This is really a battle over legal rights and priveleges - gay couples already exist and already are "married" according to their own definitions. Erase the legal benefits and most of the impetus for government-sanctioned "gay marriage" will evaporate. Of course, there are those that will continue to think a governmental slip of paper somehow morally legitimizes what they do in the eyes of society, but they're already hopeless statists IMO.


63 posted on 06/05/2006 12:22:48 PM PDT by mjwise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: pec

Why, then, do you suppose that NAMBLA is throwing whatever weight and cash it has behind the gay lobby?


64 posted on 06/05/2006 12:23:38 PM PDT by freeangel ( (free speech is only good until someone else doesn't like what you say))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Sunshine Sister

At least they're consistent in their sell-out of traditional American values.


65 posted on 06/05/2006 12:25:13 PM PDT by azhenfud (He who always is looking up seldom finds others' lost change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

What a beautiful way to sum this up!


66 posted on 06/05/2006 12:26:02 PM PDT by JZelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pec

But that's just the problem. The government IS getting involved in marriage by leftist judges demanding that state legislatures legalize gay marriage (Massachusetts). This is just an attempt to prevent the judges from dictating the laws instead of the will of the people.


67 posted on 06/05/2006 12:27:33 PM PDT by Help!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Comment #68 Removed by Moderator

To: pec
Get a clue. All I'm saying is that my "Marital Priviliges" as you put them don't come from the government. If you believe they do, then you're not a conservative. Forgive me for deigning to "advocate" such a revolutionary "minority position".

The ones that cease when you divorce surely do... IF you wish to fund homosexual marriages then do so on your own dime...

69 posted on 06/05/2006 12:31:23 PM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: pec

“Can someone please explain to me why it's the 'conservative' position to support the government's definition and endorsement of the sacred bond between me and my wife?”

Sure, I’ll give it a try.

When we’re dead and gone, the country, our children and the government will still be here.

Therefore, responsible people have an interest in ensuring that the government establishes and promotes good public policy to ensure the long-term health of the nation.

Marriage between one man and one woman has proven to be the most effective way to ensure the health, safety and upbringing of the children a marriage creates.

When marriage is damaged, children are damaged, and sodomiage, a.k.a. “same sex” marriage or “gay” marriage, certainly damages marriage.

Need proof? Ever since the Dutch passed registered partnerships in 1997, followed by formal sodomiage in 2000, they have had a continuous nine-year spike in out-of-wedlock birthrates.

“If a couple of queers get married,” your marriage, today, will not be damaged. But the institution of marriage, in the long-term, will be damaged, and children will be hurt.

It may be difficult to grasp at first, but sodomiage significantly changes the way people look at marriage, and people tend to marry less – significantly less – because of it.

The result is that fewer and fewer children grow up in stable home environment, and the children suffer.

If you doubt that, ask any elementary school teacher the following question: “Which school child is more prepared to learn: one from a stable, two-parent home, or one from some other family situation?”

We risk so very, very much, just to give a few the “right” to sodomiage. It’s an extremely bad trade.

What’s more, only a small percentage of the already small percentage of homosexuals actually do get sodomiaged (as evidenced in Massachusetts).

Why? Because same-sex perversion, for the most part, is not about fidelity and children, it is about multiple partners – and I mean hundreds – and hedonism.

If a few devoted lesbians are an exception to the rule and want to live their lives together, go for it – hire a lawyer, draw up a legal contract and live happily ever after. But legalizing sodomiage for those few simply risks too much.

Note that the same logic and “reasons” that argue for sodomiage also argue well for polygamy and consenting incestual relationships. Notice these relationships don’t affect your marriage either.

In summary, given all the hard data and risks, I think all conservatives have a duty to support the Federal Marriage Amendment, and Senators who do not support the amendment, e.g. Johnny McCain, should be voted out of office.


70 posted on 06/05/2006 12:31:44 PM PDT by redfog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Comment #71 Removed by Moderator

Comment #72 Removed by Moderator

To: pec
If the "will of the people" is to deny the rights of two consenting individuals to enter into a _legal_ contract that binds them to certain financial and personal obligations and responsibilities (pertaining ONLY to the parties to the contract), then this "will" cannot be allowed to carry the force of law. The tyranny of the majority cannot be allowed to subvert fundamental contract rights.

Your new tact is a train wreck in the making -choo, choo...

73 posted on 06/05/2006 12:35:39 PM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
To those against this amendment:

1. No, the Constitution is not limited to government "behavior". The 13th amendment (prohibition of slavery) has nothing to do with government behavior, other than it authorizes Congress to enforce it.

2. A federal marriage law would not withstand a serious challenge, based on Article IV, Section 2 (The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States). Thus an amendment is necessary.

3. Homosexual "marriage" is simply an assault on religion. Under the terms of a "civil union", homosexuals are entitled to all the rights that heterosexual couples enjoy. In this case, it is indeed the title of "Marriage" that is important. No one is asking to limit the rights of homosexuals or whatever they choose to do with each other. It is the protection of religion that is important here.

4. Bush is not playing political games. This is the fulfillment of a campaign promise. If you think it is a game, please tell me when you think it would be appropriate to pursue this promise?

5. The preamble of the Constitution notes that one role of our government is to "...insure domestic Tranquility...". Some of those on this thread would like to ignore the role of the family unit in promoting domestic tranquility. Please note that this role of the government comes before "provide for the common defence"

74 posted on 06/05/2006 12:36:16 PM PDT by kidd (If God is your co-pilot, try switching seats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservative blonde
"If we had had a ban on abortion in the Constitution before 1973 those horrid men on the SC could not have made abortion legal. "

Exactly right, and lest we forget, if the Judges had been allowed to interpret law into being, we would still have slavery. Their decision, (attempt to legislate from the bench", was that states had to allow people to own slaves. The ruling was stopped by Lincoln, and the homosexual agenda needs to be stopped now.
75 posted on 06/05/2006 12:36:35 PM PDT by gidget7 (PC is the huge rock, behind which lies hide!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Comment #76 Removed by Moderator

To: pec
Bottom line: The government should have nothing to say about any marriage. The rights that I have as a human being -- granted by God and ostensibly protected by the government -- and my relationship to the government (ie. the taxes I pay, the parking permits I get, etc.) should have nothing to do with my marital status.

And if someone wants to marry an 8 year old, or a dog?

77 posted on 06/05/2006 12:37:10 PM PDT by DungeonMaster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: pec

I would note that "gay marriages" are regularly performed by ordained clergy. I've been to several, though no longer attend (actually I don't attend marriages of any kind anymore).


78 posted on 06/05/2006 12:37:26 PM PDT by durasell (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: durasell

####The fact that the gay marriage thing isn't getting much traction (except among those whom it really seems to bother) is fascinating.####


You must have missed the clean sweep gay "marriage" opponents have been making in state referenda on this issue, a sweep that will continue this November in Wisconsin, Alabama, and other states.

And wait'll you see the reaction when the Supreme Court orders nationwide gay "marriage" in a few years. Of course, it'll be too late to do anything about it then, so the frustration will be similar to that which followed Roe vs. Wade. Acute, but by barred by judicial fiat from having a legal outlet.

The federal supremacists will win again, and the RINOs will be happy.


79 posted on 06/05/2006 12:38:01 PM PDT by puroresu (Conservatism is an observation; Liberalism is an ideology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

Comment #80 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 321-333 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson