Skip to comments.Senate Scuttles Gay Marriage Amendment (Two no-shows. Care to guess?)
Posted on 07/14/2004 9:50:28 AM PDT by 11th Earl of MarEdited on 07/14/2004 10:13:18 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON - The Senate dealt an election-year defeat Wednesday to a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, rejecting pleas from President Bush (news - web sites) and fellow conservatives that the measure was needed to safeguard an institution that has flourished for thousands of years.
The vote was 48-50, 12 short of the 60 needed to keep the measure alive.
"I would argue that the future of our country hangs in the balance because the future of marriage hangs in the balance," said Sen. Rick Santorum, a leader in the fight to approve the measure. "Isn't that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?"
But Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle said there was no "urgent need" to amend the Constitution. "Marriage is a sacred union between men and women. That is what the vast majority of Americans believe. It's what virtually all South Dakotans believe. It's what I believe."
"In South Dakota, we've never had a single same sex marriage and we won't have any," he said. "It's prohibited by South Dakota law as it is now in 38 other states. There is no confusion. There is no ambiguity."
Supporters conceded in advance they would fail to win the support needed to advance the measure, and vowed to renew their efforts.
"I don't think it's going away after this vote," Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said Tuesday on the eve of the test vote. "I think the issue will remain alive," he added.
Whatever its future in Congress, there also were signs that supporters of the amendment intended to use it in the campaign already unfolding.
"The institution of marriage is under fire from extremist groups in Washington, politicians, even judges who have made it clear that they are willing to run over any state law defining marriage," Republican senatorial candidate John Thune says in a radio commercial airing in South Dakota. "They have done it in Massachusetts and they can do it here," adds Thune, who is challenging Daschle for his seat.
"Thune's ad suggests that some are using this amendment more to protect the Republican majority than to protect marriage," said Dan Pfeiffer, a spokesman for Daschle's campaign.
At issue was an amendment providing that marriage within the United States "shall consist only of a man and a woman."
A second sentence said that neither the federal nor any state constitution "shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman." Some critics argue that the effect of that provision would be to ban civil unions, and its inclusion in the amendment complicated efforts by GOP leaders to gain support from wavering Republicans.
Bush urged the Republican-controlled Congress last February to approve a constitutional amendment, saying it was needed to stop judges from changing the definition of the "most enduring human institution."
Bush's fall rival, Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) of Massachusetts, opposes the amendment, as does his vice presidential running mate, Sen. John Edwards (news - web sites) of North Carolina. Both men skipped the vote.
The odds have never favored passage in the current Congress, in part because many Democrats oppose it, but also because numerous conservatives are hesitant to overrule state prerogatives on the issue.
At the same time, Republican strategists contend the issue could present a difficult political choice to Democrats, who could be pulled in one direction by polls showing that a majority of voters oppose gay marriage, and pulled in the other by homosexual voters and social liberals who support it. An Associated Press-Ipsos poll taken in March showed about four in 10 support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and half oppose it.
Democrats said that Bush and Republicans were using the issue to distract attention from the war in Iraq (news - web sites) and the economy.
"The issue is not ripe. It is not needed. It's a waste of our time. We should be dealing with other issues," said Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut.
But Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said a decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court had thrust the matter upon the Senate. The ruling opened the way for same sex marriages in the state, and Frist predicted the impact would eventually be far broader.
"Same-sex marriage will be exported to all 50 states. The question is no longer whether the Constitution will be amended. The only question is who will amend it and how will it be amended," he added.
He said the choice was "activist judges" on the one hand and lawmakers on the other.
Sickening. Who voted against it?
Did John F'in Kerry vote?
48-50 against continuing debate according to cspan2
McVain for one voted against it. Really anymore to do anything in the Senate to avoid these filibusters, we need to have a "super majority" of Repubs.
Don't know yet...
But look for McLame, Collins and the whole RINO gang.
Good. This is one of the stupidest amendments ever proposed.
Hagel & McCain I guess?
(Reuters) - A divided U.S. Senate on Wednesday rejected a bid to amend the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, likely killing the proposal backed by President Bush for at least this election year.
--Did John F'in Kerry vote?--
bwahahahahaha does he ever vote??
Time to start cleaning house this election cycle. And if at all possible start a recall vote for the ones who voted against.
Not a chance. The RNC will ensure these RINO's get reelected every time.
We need a new political party.
it won't register as an issue with most people until their kids come home from school and tell them that today's lesson showed how Eddie could marry Bobby, or Susie, and it was all the same. By then, it will be too late to do anything about it of course, but the sheeple don't understand that. once these marriages are performed, and the SCOTUS tosses the federal defense of marriage act - there will be no way to undo it.
Doubt it .. he's too afraid to go on record
We need a new political party. YES! YES! YES!
Our own GOP will push for thier re-election
"Did John F'in Kerry vote?"
No. He spoke in the Senate today, but didn't stick around for the vote. More important things to do, apparently...
For the moment you might be right. The Republican party was infested with non-conservatives just like the Church Priesthood has been infested by the Perverted crowd. However I believe this one act of Anti-Family will be enough to bring out the silent Majority to kick some RINO and DIM arse.
Republicans opposed will not be forgotten.
I want a list.
Actually, I guess it was Edwards who spoke and didn't stay. Kerry didn't show up at all, so neither of them voted. That was why it was 48-50, rather than 48-52.
And anyone who disagrees will probably get banned.
The vote was a close 47-50 and your answer is to get rid of the whole party? Wouldn't it be easier to work at defeating the few pubs who voted against it?
We need a new political party. Rid us of this "Two-Party Cartel". Remember ALWAYS on substantial issues this cartel will make sure that conservative issues NEVER gets passed. I guarantee that if we don't rid ourselves of this cartel we will NEVER have these kinds of votes go our way - Guaranteed.
We need a new party for a lotta reasons. This is just one more.
Yes we very much do. I knew that way before this happened. I hope someone like Dobson, Roy Moore, or even Mel Gibson would run in 2008. Christian conservatives need to start building anew instead going down with the sinking ship. It's time for reflection and some hard choices.
"Who voted against it?"
More than those that voted for it. With 67 needed for passage, this was not even in the neighborhood of winning passage. But, the campaign issue got it's day in the sun.
67 votes were needed, not just a majority.
Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, opposes the amendment, as does his vice presidential running mate, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina. Both men skipped the vote.
You're so optimistic NOT! It may be too late this year, but these RINOs can be held to account in the future, especially primaries.
it's not up yet, but will be soon...
There goes the country.
Don't get me wrong, I'm happily voting for 43. But I still think we (Americans in general, not just Pubbies) need a new party.
here's your hard choice: President Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2008. any questions?
Correct. See post #21...
And 35 million homosexuals cheer - especially the 30 million who have no intention of, or interest in, ever getting "married". Satan is grinning and getting ready for the next attack on decent folks.
And may all those who took the mushy middle be the first to hear those words from their own children. Or better yet, may the kids stay silent until they come home a few years later announcing that they are gay. (I do not really wish that on ANY children. But since it WILL happen, may it happen to the children with parents who offered their complicity to this.)
Good news for the CONSTITUTION!
The Republicans can't even win on an issue that 75%-80% of the public agrees on.
mccain was one.
Fox news dropped the ball big time on this.
The reporting was amaturish at best. They failed to show that the states would then get this issue.
They failed to say the house had to vote on this.
Tooo many former NBC staffers at fox.
Tooo many women of wealsley.
That's the catch. You can change any horse but they will A-L-W-A-Y-S find an excuse not to make it happen. We were told that if we had ALL 3 branches of government we would see a conservative agenda. FALSE! But put a liberal 3 branch in place & all he!! liberalism flourishes. How does that happen??? You all are being duped by the elites that control 90% plus of these bastards & they will never allow a conservative agenda to get traction. Guaranteed
The issue is the remedy-- this amendment. People aren't convinced it's the right remedy. Even Kerry opposes gay marriage, he just opposes amending the Constitution when it's not obvious that such a thing is absolutely necessary.
As if the leadership will allow that.
We couldn't even knock out Specter without the powers that be getting involved and stopping us.
Oh, yeah. Now wacko judges can keep interpreting it however they want. Great news.
Agreed!! I will be finding out WHO voted against it and I believe we can expect a uproar of anger towards those senators!! SPLINELESS WONDERS they are!!!!!
"The Republicans can't even win on an issue that 75%-80% of the public agrees on."
I don't think that's fair to the GOP. It's nowhere near 75-80% in the polls...
Senators who wanted the matter left to the states?
No, good news for our black robed rulers.
Oh, go whine and cry elsewhere. I see constant dissension on this forum. The only folks who get banned are the rulebreakers. And I've seen nothing in the rules resembling what you claim.
If it did exist, you'd already be banned and your post erased.