Posted on 07/13/2004 10:13:55 AM PDT by truthandlife
Senate Democrats on Tuesday appeared headed toward a tactical victory over the hot-button issue of gay marriage.
What seemed likely Monday — an up-or-down Senate vote on a proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage as only "the union of a man and a woman" — appeared very doubtful a day later as Republican and Democratic leaders were unable to agree on a procedure for a vote.
Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has scheduled a Wednesday vote on cloture, a procedural move that would limit debate on the topic and allow the Senate to proceed to voting on the proposed amendment itself.
Senators who who want to avoid casting election-year votes on the amendment, one way or the other, will vote against cloture and it seems unlikely that Frist will be able to muster the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture and allow a vote on the amendment.
That will let Democrats who didn't want to cast a vote on the question of whether marriage should be limited to heterosexual couples breathing easier.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
The Senate was the graveyard for the "Contract With America" and now it looks like the Rats and RINOs are once again up to their same old tricks.
Your whole argument is premised on one enormous false dichotomy. Only a short-sighted fool writes legislation into the Constitution, and it opens up a very nasty Pandora's Box.
Alternative #1: Get the government out of the marriage business altogether. You didn't need to ask permission from the government to get married way back in the day. It has been nothing but a disaster since it left the church and became what is primarily a government entitlement of sorts. All it does is give politicians a vehicle to do social engineering; great when your team is in power, not so great when Hillary is President.
Alternative #2: Let the States decide. Since gay marriage laws have failed spectacularly when left to the voters even in States like California, they won't go anywhere. The "full faith and credit" clause won't apply even if a couple States do pass it, any more than it does for most other things e.g. CCW.
Of these two more structurally correct alternatives, Alternative #1 is by far the most bulletproof of the bunch. Evil politicians can't abuse it, judges can't abuse it, and you don't engage in the profoundly stupid act of legislating in the Federal Constitution.
I don't need foolhardy conservatives jeopardizing the long-term situation in this country so that they can gain a short-term political "victory", particularly over such a nebulous issue. There are many ways to take the issue off the table for the homosexual lobby without doing something equally stupid in the opposite direction.
Linguini-spined Republicans let Democrats escape again. Frist should have said the Senate will be in session on this issue until hell freezes over cause we will have an up or down vote. They let the Democrats chicken out on a winning issue for our side. <disgust
I dont have any faith in the lickspittle Republicans ability to do the right thing. They can't even stand up to the Democrats on judicial nominations.
Yep. The GOP-controlled Senate has been a graveyard for conservative legislation. We need friends like these like we need enemies.
While I agree, we know that the nutless leadership won't do this or they would have done it to force a vote on the judical nominees.
Same thing here. Don't let the outcome bother you. Its one of those times two-thirds of the Senate don't reflect the will of the people of this country. A pro-marriage amendment would pass by a landslide at the polls. They just don't get it in Washington cause they don't represent us when it counts.
Yep. Only a small number of people care passionately enough about the issue... its like abortion. We can hope to affect the debate for now from the margins. Remember, this is just the first of many votes. The issue won't go away as long as liberal judges keep imposing the gay agenda on the country.
"The courts will continue to advance the homosexual agenda; the politicians will continue to dance around the issue and in another few years (I predict by 2009) homosexual "marriage" will be the norm and those opposing it will be seen as extremist kooks and religious fanatics."
Except for homosexual marriage being the norm, everything you said here is already true. Anyone opposing homosexual marriage now, is already viewed as extremist and fanatical.
Hey you people from New Jersey. Lautenberg is up there stating he gets no calls. The American people are not concerned abour morality issues. In summary, we don't give a hoot.
I'd have more faith in that method if the media and much of the judiciary as well as Democrat politicians weren't rabid, slavering sycophants of the "gay" rights crowd.
That's why the states need to put a gun to their heads by passing resolutions calling for a constitutional convention. Some people consider that the nucear option for constitutional amendments.
Well, if they can't break a filibuster, they can't break a filibuster.
It takes 60, and they have 51.
But the DemocRATS can't force Frist to change the agenda. I say force the senate DemocRATS to filibuster 24 hours per day on C-SPAN against the amendment.
I agree.
Apparently the only way to stop this BS in the future is to increase the number of "R"'s in the senate and then ELIMINATE the RINOS.
This hands the issue to the republicans.
It is worth noting this "doomed" and uninsightful and poorly written article is from MSNBC.
This makes me think of the FedEx commerical "we'ree DOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!"
This will be revisited by Bush in a second term. Kerry will make homosexual marriage mandatory for children.
This is flat-out incorrect. Please read the essay I've linked to, and you'll see why this statement is wrong.
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.