Skip to comments.Marriage amendment expected to die in Senate
Posted on 07/13/2004 11:35:00 PM PDT by Pikamax
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A proposed constitutional amendment that would effectively prohibit gay or lesbian couples from legally marrying is expected to die in a procedural Senate vote Wednesday.
On Tuesday, a maneuver by Senate Republicans to paint presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry into a political corner went awry amid internal GOP divisions.
Facing the prospect that the amendment as originally drafted wouldn't get a simple majority -- let alone the two-thirds vote needed for approval of a proposed amendment -- Republican leaders decided to move to a second version of the measure, stripped of language that troubled some GOP moderates.
But Democrats refused to go along.
That means supporters of the amendment will need to get 60 votes in a procedural vote Wednesday to cut off debate and move to a vote on the amendment itself -- a hurdle they are unlikely to overcome with most Democrats and some moderate Republicans opposed.
The death of the amendment would be a blow to social conservatives, who have been pressing hard for the measure after same-sex marriages were legalized in Massachusetts in May.
President Bush has also championed the proposed amendment, saying it was necessary to protect the institution of marriage from "activist judges."
Democrats have accused Republicans of political gamesmanship for bringing up the divisive issue two weeks before the Democratic National Convention, hoping to use "no" votes by Kerry and and his running mate, Sen. John Edwards, as a wedge issue with polls showing that the majority of Americans oppose same-sex marriage.
Tuesday, Democrats were relishing what they saw as the maneuver's backfire.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Let's get a listing of all Republicans that are opposing the passage of this amendment and call them and tell them that conservatives, especially conservative Christians will work tirelessly to see them be defeated in the next election. We will oppose them in the Republican Primary and I suggest that we oppose them in the general election too. If they are going to vote like Democrats, give them what they want; a democratic Senator. We need to rid the Senate of liberal Republicans. But we must let them know what there opposition will lead to. Will someone please post a list of the Republican senators opposing the FMA so we can contact them? We must not forget this. And if they refuse to support the President and the wishes of the vast majority of Americans, we have a duty to oppose them when they are up for re-election.
I think some are. I think many in the Adminstration are not. But I believe that the vast majority of Republican voters are socially conservative, as you phrase it. For the GOP, gratuitously offending them is a SURE way to lose this election! The Dem will turn up with their base. We will we be?
If they would just tell us where they REALLY stand in the primaries, then we would have a choice. But they won't. They will pretend to want to cut spending, but we have seen them control Congress for a decade, with nothing less than a spending binge.
I'm not surprised politicians won't do squat about family values. However, its good campaign fodder.
I'll put on my flame suit here, but I hope it does die without going to the floor. I'm not for gay marriage, but if this ban passed, It would open the floodgates for societal issues to be made constitutional amendments. I could see an amendment proposed to guarantee women the right to abortion.
Last resort. And it sends a message - even - if enacted by the states and added to our Constitution. That message is, it was required. It was demanded by Court abuse. If not for the Court, these Amendments would not have been added, by the states. It may seem Constitutional 'clutter' (other such amendments notwithstanding). But that pro-life message, and even such amendment, is as important as slavery, as Reagan saw, and so many others. And a defense of family amendment, also directed exclusively at the Court, again as a last resort, and nothing less, states what is so obvious that any Court should find it in almost every word of the Constitution.
Someone please clear this up for me.
Does the amendment merely set the definition for 'marriage' for the Federal level, or does it impose the definition on state governments?
Since the U.S. Constitution trumps state constitutions, if marriage is strictly defined in the ammendment it limits the states to the same definition.
Ah, I see. Thanks.
McCain pointed out just how much of a RINO he was w/ his floor speech last night.
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.