Senate Scuttles Gay Marriage Amendment (Two no-shows. Care to guess?)

AP/ Yahoo ^ | 7/14/04 | David Espo

[11th Earl of Mar]

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.

[longtermmemmory]

Kerry advocates spending (giving away) SOCIAL SECURITY MONEY to reward homosexual sex partners.

Kerry advocates allowing homosexuals who are US citizens to be able to put fiance visas for homosexual sex partners.

Kerry advocates FEDERALizing recognisiton of "civil unions".

Kerry is ready to SPEND FEDERAL MONEY to reward homosexuals

[concerned about politics]

And 35 million homosexuals cheer

And the majority of them were bused in from Canada. The Republicans should be proud - NOT!

[longtermmemmory]

Marriage is about children.

Without an institution to promote children there is no society for the future.

Society does not reward the sex act, society rewards the result.

Homosexual acts never produce children.
Hetersexual acts do produce children.

Society is rewarding the institution of Marriage, not the individual in a marriage.

[concerned about politics]

Good news for the CONSTITUTION!

Your screen name suits you.

[longtermmemmory]

35 million?

Does that include prison inmates?

Victims of khomosexual rape?

[Texas Federalist]

There is no authority for the proposition that Congress cannot remove a constitutional question from the jurisdiction of the federal courts altogether, although the topic is a subject of much debate. In the only case that directly addressed this issue, the Supreme Court upheld Congress's power to restrict the Court's appellate jurisdiction. In Ex Parte McCardle (1869), the Court unanimously upheld Congress's power to limit its jurisdiction, stating that "the power to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of this court is given by express words. What, then, is the effect of the repealing act upon the case before us? We cannot doubt as to this. Without jurisdiction, the court cannot proceed at all in any case." Although scholars argue that Congress cannot restrict the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to the extent that it intrudes upon the Court's "core functions," there is no question that Congress has more authority under the Constitution to act than it has recently exercised.

Also, I disagree that if it were easy to remove issues from the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary, that the liberals would have done so long ago. We all know that the liberals have benefitted more from a strong judiciary and would not want to travel down the slippery slope of limiting its power. I think the conservatives have just been too timid to do so.

[hunter112]

The Republicans voting for all fetish marriage will pay for this.

Nope. There's a reason that RINOs exist, and that is because the alternative is much worse. How many of us wouldn't replace Hillary Clinton with a RINO? All she does for us is provide a scary face when we need to raise money.

Here in WA, I'd love to see our two Rat senators replaced with RINOs. In order to get elected, and to stay elected, the RINOs would have to oppose the FMA. But they'd be valuable when it comes to approving President Bush's judicial nominees, or at least ensuring that important committee chairmanships stay in the hands of people from the more conservative states.

Anyone who is genuinely disappointed about the turnout of today's vote was living in a fantasy world, if they thought that there would be 67 votes for an FMA.

[HungarianGypsy]

Didn't expect a different vote from McPain in Arizona. The man is rarely in Arizona unless he's playing professional politician and kissing up to the "if it doesn't effect me directly" crowd. Would love to have him out of office, but no one has run against him. Am happy to have Jon Kyl as a senator, though. At least he listens to the people he represents.

[hunter112]

Without an institution to promote children there is no society for the future.

I keep wondering, how will gay marriage, civil unions, or even just mere tolerance of homosexuality, stop heterosexual people from finding each other, and producing offspring?

[hunter112]

Without an institution to promote children there is no society for the future.

I keep wondering, how will gay marriage, civil unions, or even just mere tolerance of homosexuality, stop heterosexual people from finding each other, and producing offspring?

[concerned about politics]

Kerry advocates spending (giving away) SOCIAL SECURITY MONEY to reward homosexual sex partners.

Kerry advocates allowing homosexuals who are US citizens to be able to put fiance visas for homosexual sex partners.

Kerry advocates FEDERALizing recognisiton of "civil unions".

Kerry is ready to SPEND FEDERAL MONEY to reward homosexuals

Kerry, (along with the few Republicans who voted against the amendment) advocates NAMBLA being legally married so they can legally adopt their very own sex toys. What a nice American family value, aye ?
(Follow the money)

[Texas Federalist]

Individual liberty can only be protected if the common defense is first provided for. The common defense is an aspect of the common good. The common defense and the common good are logically prior to the State's promotion of individual liberty.

The common defense comes firts, but the common defense is BOTH part of the states promotion of individual liberty AND the common good. However, the common good is a much broader concept that includes social directives that cannot logically be considered more important than the State's protection of individual liberty. So why is "the general welfare" mentioned in the Preamble?

The Preamble does not set the Constitutional limits of the federal government. Also, I am not arguing that the general welfare is not a legitimate aim of government. I am just stating that if you consider it more important than protecting individual liberty, you are one of the few.

[fooman]

check to stat in sweden to see....

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

All this tripe about we should'nt tamper with the constitution!SO WHAT!!!It ain't the Bible so don't worry about it.This country is faced with and will be faced with serious problems concerning moral deterioration.I don't care if you ad 100 new amendments,if there is a problem to be addressed then deal with it by any means necessary.

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

All this tripe about we should'nt tamper with the constitution!SO WHAT!!!It ain't the Bible so don't worry about it.This country is faced with and will be faced with serious problems concerning moral deterioration.I don't care if you ad 100 new amendments,if there is a problem to be addressed then deal with it by any means necessary.

[steve-b]

It boils down to the description of original jurisdiction versus appellate jurisdiction. By the description of the judicial power in Article III, "all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution" must fall within the original jurisdiction of some federal court, either the Supreme Court or a lesser court created by Congress (Congress can decide which, except for a list later in Article III that are specifically reserved to the Supreme Court). Congress can constrain the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and the original and appellate jurisdiction of lesser courts, which would have the effect of making the highest court that did have jurisdiction over a given case the "last word" setting precedents on the matter for its district of jurisdiction.

[concerned about politics]

I keep wondering, how will gay marriage, civil unions, or even just mere tolerance of homosexuality, stop heterosexual people from finding each other, and producing offspring?

The problem is the children in the schools will be taught queers are normal. If they're taught queers are normal, so is bestiality, pedophilia, polygamy, S&M, cannibalism, and any other dysfunctional sex fetish. What's considered Constitutional for one type of sex fetish must be Constitutional for them all. Otherwise, it's "Sexual preference discrimination." All fetishes are considered equal. That's the law. They're all choices.
What's the difference between having sex with the same sex, and having sex with a goat? A man having sex with 10 wives? A foot fetishist wanting to have sex and marriage with a womans shoe? Nothing. They're all sex choices. They're all equal, and nothing like man and woman in love bearing a child together and being a loving family. It's like apples and oranges.
Should a woman able to marry a car because she loves doing it with the tale pipe? Should a man be able to marry a tree for it's knot hole?

[weegee]

ONLY Kerry and Edwards declined to vote. There is NO headline broadcasting this fact.

Searching Google's news, one headline called it "Bush's Anti-Gay Measure, But..." (the Village Voice) but President Bush cannot introduce such items to the Senate. Some headlines do announce the local vote for a state.

Edwards HAS spoken out on today's vote:

Edwards says Senate vote is a defeat for 'politics of division' (same sex marriage)

[hunter112]

Ah, yes, the old trot-out-Scandinavia argument. Sorry, its not fair to compare a pure welfare state that never had to fight for its freedom (within living memory, at least) having a homogenous population; with our society that has different values.

Sure, people procreate before marriage, here as over there, but they do manage to perpetuate the species. Homosexuals who are not interested in having children are not going to turn straight and procreate just because an FMA is on the books.

[oceanview]

tolerance is fine, its what we have now.

but acceptance through a re-definition of marriage, will quickly lead to advocacy. and with that, you will see an even further decline in the already imploding rates of marriage and in-wedlock birth rates.