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.
"once these marriages are performed, and the SCOTUS tosses the federal defense of marriage act - there will be no way to undo it."
That's exactly right.
Great post, btw.
the situation in the public schools is going to get much worse when gay marriage is legalized. much worse. the tolerance that we have now, will morph into acceptance, and advocacy will soon follow.
we already have, at least amongst white americans, imploding rates of marriage and imploding birth rates and family formation. this will only accelerate that.
"government out of the marriage business..."
Totally agree. I've been saying that for years.
The courts will likely interpret the defeat of the amendment as carte blance to rule that banning homosexual marriage, or even not according it the same benefits and priveleges as hetrosexual marriage, is a violation of equal protection, and thus unconsitutional. It's not, gays can marry, just not other gays of the same sex.
Or Eddie could marry Bobby, and Susie, as well as their pet dog.
Actually, Congress has the ability to remove circuit court jurisdiction or disband the Circuit Courts altogether. The Circuit Courts do not exist but for a Congressional mandate establishing them. See U.S. Const. Art. III, Sec. 1.
Agree, also. States should have the say on this EXCEPT that states not permitting gay marriage should NOT be required to accept and recognize homosexual marriages in States that do allow such marriage.
Another stupid amendment previously proposed, IMO, was flag burning. I believe that it is a form of free speech, even though disrespectful. Flag burning is done only to get attention by some radical group or individual, and local laws on disturbing the peace or inciting a riot can be used instead of a constitutional amendment.
....It only directly affects those who are gay....
Unitl your health insurance and taxes go up to pay for people who have 5 times as many partners as heteros.
And until your kid becomes one and you have no grand kids, or your is taken away by the state for gay adoption...
The first principle of the State is to promote the common good. Since all members of society pass through the institution of the family, the State has a duty to promote the health of families and marriage.
Sure you don't want to rethink that? You may want to brush up on some history my FRiend...the role of the "state" in America (as it is plainly written in the Constitution) is much, much less intrusive and have less "duties" than you think.
As for the common good...see tagline.
What rights would those be?
The primary duty of the State is to protect individual liberty.
"Hey, how about we get all Gov't OUT of the marriage business"
BRAVO - I agree completely
"I was extremely annoyed that I had to get a liscense or permission from some Gov't stooge to get married"
Of course you didn't have to get the government endorsed license if you didn't want to, but then you would not be entitled to the legal benefits of marriage (medical decision making, employee spouse benefits etc.)
I wonder how the IRS will craft the 1040 forms for polygamy? is it married filing jointly, or do we need some new classifications?
IN any case, as much of a scoundrel Byrd is, he needs to be thanked for doing what was right on this issue.
Duh.
Of course they should not.
But they will, when the federal courts get their hands on it.
This amendment is the one way to stop it.
True. Which is one of many reasons why we're homeschooling. God save the children.
we already have, at least amongst white americans, imploding rates of marriage and imploding birth rates and family formation. this will only accelerate that.
This has been the experience in Sweden.
and Nevil Chamberlin thought he could talk to Mr. Hilter (and his homosexual aids)
I would disagree. I think the definition of marriage, as government defines it, strongly impacts everyone, because it concerns adoption, public schools, and the general cultural force of government.
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.