The two cowards in the Senate, afraid to take an official stand on the amendment to preserve traditional marriage, chat about how cool it is to be metrosexual. Notice the glint of jealousy in the Frenchie's eyes.
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.
You are exactly right.
Well said. The overwhelming number of gays will never marry. The endgame here is the redefinition (that's a nice word) of a key institution that stands between them and legitimacy.
Next will be use of government force to silence their enemies.
Suggested speech lead-in for Presidential comments on F.M.A. Senate vote today:
"My fellow Americans, today marked an important day in the US Senate when voices of reason and decency made attempts to protect the institution of marriage in the United States, something that is supported by a vast majority of the American people. Today, despite Senators Kerry and Edwards being the only two no-shows for this important vote, in addition to those in the Senate who voted against moving forward on this vital issue, I know the work will continue and that much needs to be done....."
It can be both. Natural marriage serves to promote the earthly good of husband, wife and children, and therefore of society. Sacramental marriage is ordered toward the eternal salvation of all of the members of the family.
Thank you John McCain and the Dems in the Senate for denying me my chance to be heard on this issue.
I agree that gay people don't particularly like being hated, disapproved of, etc. - but then again, neither do I. I don't want to see their advocacy groups in our elementary schools teaching children that "being Gay is ok!" - but then again, I don't want ANY advocacy groups in our classrooms. I must admit to being a bit creeped out by homosexuality on a purely asthetic level (ie., I'm not gay), and that's where I part company with them.
Correction: Hagel voted "yea."
Cnn Radio News (Rush's newsbreak) gave incorrect results right after the vote.
Fast, but not accurate.
(I don't think Rush has a choice -- he would never choose CNN for news on his program.)
Any and all. In this case the right of individuals to decide what constitutes the meaning of the word marriage. The word has an ancient cultural meaning and regardless of various peripheral claims, the word refers to a mutually agreed to contract between one man and one woman. That is the meaning that was just shot down by the leftists as being unrecognizanble to them.
47 Senators were able to recognize and acknowledge what is, and the others failed. The reason was to promote an open ended rainbow def, that serves all the idiot minorities. That open ended rainbow def, denies the rights of all those parents that want their kids to hear the truth, instead of all the various bogus teachings presented to normalize and present as wholesome homo arrangements and activities.
The homos can do anything they want. Their rights aren't being violated whatsoever. If they want rpoperty arrangements, they can form legal contracts to do so. They're not happy with that. They want to violate the culture to artificially and fraudulently raise the perceived acceptability and inherent humanness of their perversion to the status of that which the culture formerly recognized as reality.
It's good this is on the record now.
Fewer Republicans voted against it than I would have guessed (Yay!). I didn't realize McCain was pro-homomarriage.
Figures that Kerry and Edwards skipped the vote.
What I'm saying is most Americans don't care enough about gay marriage to demand that the U.S. Constitution be altered.
When I go over to that site, though, I end up losing my lunch most of the time....
The vote was for cloture, and it failed 48-50. A vote on cloture is a vote to shut off debate, and proceed to the main question. A cloture vote requires 60 for passage; thus the motion failed by 12 votes. The vote against cloture effectively prevented the question itself from coming to the floor.
Does anyone disagree with the above? Corrections cheerfully accepted; I've been wrong before.
Now, some more subjective opinions:
Some Senators may choose to hide behind the technical fact that they didn't vote for gay marriage per se, but only against shutting off debate. But I'm sure ratings groups right (such as the ACU) and left (such as the ADA) will count this vote as pro- or anti-gay marriage.
I'm sure that a couple of "nay" votes on the cloture question were from the right, or from a libertarian perspective (maybe Sununu's vote?), but most were from the left.
The Administration "won" here, by getting the supporters of gay marriage on the record (out of the closet, so to speak). The bill itself was never going to win, and if it had, it never would have been ratified.
Personally, I think it's God-awful constitutional law, but I'd have voted for cloture (and the bill itself) in a sort of "send 'em a message" mode. A bit hypocritical of me, I suppose, but that's how both sides are playing the game these days.
Lincoln (D-AR), Nay
Isn't this one running for re-election? In the Bible Belt.
Thats because most of our Republicans are a bunch of spineless weenies.
they already have tolerance; and in many states, they had civil unions also to address some of the issues like health care proxies, wills, etc. many private corporations give benefits also.
but they want to ram this down everyone's throat.
tell me, if one member of a married gay couple now takes a job at, let's say a Catholic hospital, does the hospital have to provide spousal benefits for the husband (or wife, or whatever they are going to be called)? how long before a court rules that they must do it, since gay marriages are legal?
about 10 seconds.
You are correct.
I was quoting CNN Radio News, which reported on Rush's Newsbreak immediately after the vote.
They also had the percentages reversed. Glad I didn't quote those.
let's see what tune they start singing when its gets to their kids. it will be too late by then of course, to nullify all of the gay marriages that are already in place.
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.