Posted on 07/13/2004 2:13:25 PM PDT by ICX
Edited on 07/13/2004 2:15:02 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans prepared two versions of a constitutional amendment on marriage Monday, unable to agree among themselves on how best to get a vote on a measure that President Bush (search) made an election-year priority for Congress.
The likely outcome is that neither proposal will get a direct vote after Democrats just last week had agreed to allow one.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (search), R-Tenn., said there was "great interest" among Republicans for a simpler approach that would add only one line to the U.S. Constitution: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Are you f*cking kidding me? What the hell is the point of the amendment in that case?
But if liberal judicial activists want to amend the same precious document, that's A-OK with him.
The Amendment was intended to clarify that a same sex marriage valid in one state due to legislative act was not entitled to full faith and credit recognition in states which do not recognize such marriages.
The Pub's failure to agree to go with one version only probably gives the 'Rats the cover they were looking for. This is a shambles at this point.
This is just the same smorgasbord of excuses we see at the state level too. They are not real complaints. They're just a revovling set of distractions. All this "we" talk by the very ones who do not want the people of this country to have a say in this matter is very interesting.
Exactly. Its like Republicans to miss an opportunity to hold Democrats accountable especially when the Democrats themselves agreed to an up or down vote. Amazing what our divisions do for the enemy when the enemy was afraid of having to take a stand. Thanks a lot for nothing, Senate GOP!
Sounds obscure, but it is a narrow amendment that overturns the Mass case but otherwise gets out of the way.
Usual Keystone Cop GOP behavior to get divided and conquered. Problem is judicial activism is a nettlesome problem and this is an indirect solution, only there are many, so they cant get down to just one... Like trying to end malaria with an elephant gun.
There is a simple solution here:
CONSIDER SENATOR'S ACCOUNTABLE FOR EACH VERSION AND CONSIDER THEM ANTI_FAMILY IF THEY VOTE AGAINST *ANY* VERSION!
So a pro-family senator will vote yes on all *5* versions.
It also keeps homosexual recreational sex partners out of the immigration rights and federal taxes.
It's all very interesting. It makes me suspicious that some Republicans were covering their own hind end while launching a torpedo at the Marriage Protection Amendment.
I am not sure that wimpy one would overturn the Mass case at all. Unless we spell out the fact that courts can't make the decisions, they will make the decisions. According to the DOMA, marriage in the US is already defined as only between one man and one woman. Yet the Mass court decreed it anyway. If all else fails, they can just do a name switcharoo. Civil Unions that equal marriage will be the next big court mandate, just like Vermont.
You are right. I want the names of those who wanted the weak version.
What an incredible leadership void we see personified in Frist. The language should have been nailed down, solid, with everybody onboard or not, months ago.
Exactly. With email, ipagers etc in business we can get 50 people to review and agree on wordings for contracts or documents in less than a week.
You realize of course that the reason for the activism by the queer community to get marriage recognition is to take advantage of various Federal benefits. You eliminate the benefits and the issue disappears. The courts have stripped all state laws that reflect the wishes of the public regarding their idea of moral or reasonable conduct. Most of the problems could be taken care of by statute restricting the Federal courts from injecting themselves into state laws based on marriage or state moral issues based on state standards of behavior.
Benefits is part of it but these gays would want gay marriage even if benefits didn't enter into it. It's about control. They are more interested in controlling and changing the landscape so they look less queer in public so they feel better about their deviant behavior. That's what its about.
But I wonder about federal benefits. Take income tax filing. Let's say a gay couple living in MS goes to MA and gets married. They then go back to MS and file a federal income tax form and file it as married even though MS doesn't recognize gay marriage? I'm having trouble keeping up with this.
This division on social issues is killing us. We have got to come together for the upcoming elections and for the good of the party. The intolerant Senators in the GOP need to put aside their anti-marriage bigotry until after we recapture more seats in the Congress and re-elect our President.
It has blown up in their face.
How? Please explain? I saw Santorum,Allard and Sessions on C-Span this evening and they were magnificent!! And where was that evil and useless party,the Democrats-AKA the Jackass party?! Nowhere to be found.If anybody ought to be called on the carpet it's that sorry party.imho.
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.