On the other hand, you personally attacked me.
ROTFLMAO!! 
Posted on 07/14/2004 9:50:28 AM PDT by 11th Earl of Mar
Edited 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.
Most Americans really don't care much about this issue.
It only directly affects those who are gay. I doubt the constitution will ever be changed for this purpose. Nor should it IMO.
No, but you are, Senator. Overripe, in fact.
The 52 Senators do NOT represent majority opinion on this subject. It bears repeating the elected representatives of the people can sometimes vote opposite to their desires. I do know for a fact if this measure were brought to a nationwide vote of the people, it would pass in a heartbeat. In a way I am pleased the N0-SHOWS (we know who they are) were just too cowardly to tell us where they stood on the most important issue of our time.
To my recollection, Hagel voted yes, McCain no.
On the other hand, you personally attacked me.
ROTFLMAO!!
BARF ALERT
Oh well, we had some nasty losses before we got to the Battle of Midway.
Eagles still up.
Disgusting. These two are beneath contempt.
IIRC, that was due to Rove's machinations on behalf of W's re-election, W's sense of loyalty to Specter, and the re-registration of union members solely to interfere in the pubbie primary. That was quite a convergence, and it's no reason to give up in dispair. The last enduring, successful third party resulted from a momentous issue about 150 years ago.
Congress cannot remove "federal" appellate jurisdiction. It can only constrain the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (which would have the effect of making the circuit court the "court of last resort" setting the binding precedents for each district).
You're wrong. We are all born into the family. Its fate affects all of us regardless of whether we never marry and for those of us who do, it affects the health of our relationships and the welfare of our children. When the American people have the opportunity to affirm marriage, they have done so over the opposition or ignorance of our elites. The Senate may be closely divided on this issue but the vast majority of the American people know we need to preserve and strengthen it for posterity.
how are you going to keep it out of the public schools? once gay marriage is as legal as the marriages we have today, how are you going to stop gay activitists and the courts from forcing public schools to adopt this as part of the curriculum? can you imagine taking young children, who have not formed their own sense of reality on this topic due to their age and maturity level - from being taught that Eddie marrying Bobby is the same as Eddie marrying Susie?
Make that "womyn."
It is already too late. My 24 y/o staunchly Republican, Bush supporting, Rep. precinct chairperson niece and her 22 y/o staunchly Republican, poll working brother proclaimed to the whole family on Thanksgiving that they could care less if two guys or two women get married.
"its 65%."
That certainly sounds closer to what I've seen in the polls.
Scuttle is a bad turn of words, it can be brought up again.
Particularly with a SENATOR DITAKA!
Well, I am worried the approach is " we tried, but it's impossible given the numbers.'' The longer Republicans fumble, the more the public will come to believe it's something they have to accept, whether the like it personally or not. That's the way it works.
SOMEBODY CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG HERE....
that....
THE TWO NO-SHOW SENATE VOTES JUST NOW ON THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE WERE....****KERRY AND EDWARDS**** (???)
He showed up and didn't vote?????
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.