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.
#####Strategerist says there is not a consensus for an amendment to define marriage as that of one man and one woman.#####
It shows how much "liberal" judicial imperialism has turned our constitutional system upside down. Shouldn't those trying to change the law be the ones who have to build a consensus? In a sane world, that's how it would work. But in the upside down world of "liberal" judicial activism, no consensus is needed at all when the left decides it wants to change things. Justice Margaret Marshall, Justice Harry Blackmun, or whomever, just snaps a finger and the law is declared changed. We're then told that those wanting to keep the law as it has been for the past 200 plus years are the ones who have to go out and build a consensus.
Did supporters a nationwide abortion-on-demand need a consensus to achieve their goal in 1973? Nope. They didn't even need a 51% majority. All they needed were Harry Blackmun and his Supreme Court allies. Consensus? The left don't need no stinkin' consensus! Instead, we were told that if pro-lifers wanted to put things back the way they were before Roe (i.e., the way they were from 1776 to 1973), then they would need to go out and build an overwhelming consensus to put things back the way they were.
That's how the gay "marriage" debate is now playing out. Do you ever hear anyone talking about how gay advocates will need to build a consensus, meaning overwhelming majority public support, to achieve their goals? You never hear that because it's tacitly assumed that they don't a consensus. Only conservatives need a consensus. All the gay "marriage" proponents need are a few appointed judges in the right place when the lawsuit is filed.
In other words, we need 85% public support, two-thirds of both houses of Congress, and three-fourths of the states to win. All they need is 16% public support and nine appointed judges.
The irony is delicious. The Founding Fathers meant for it to be extremely difficult to amend the Constitution. Instead, it's now extremely difficult to keep it the same. The Founding Fathers believed the Constitution should only be changed when three-fourths of the states agree to the change. We're about to have a "right to gay marriage" added to the Constitution by a few judges, contemporaneous with three-fourths of the states voting NOT to permit gay "marriage" (the flurry of recently enacted DOMAs).
James Madison is rolling in his grave.
You're right, but the solution is to impeach the judges, not change the constitution.
It is a national issue.
the federal DOMA is gone in 2005, 6 votes on the SCOTUS to toss it (according to Robert Bork). once the case gets there, its bye-bye. this amendment is an attempt to get ahead of that inevitability.
It is a state issue. When has the Federal government EVER given out marriage licenses?
No I didnt read the article because I know what I BELIEVE. I don't really care either. Like I said, it is a non-issue for me....
Thanks, Bfah -- Check out #282, too.
So then how long would it take until this amendment got tossed too?
I don't think this is for the Federal Government to legislate on....
If you mean "tossed" by the courts, that's impossible. The courts cannot declare the Constitution unconstitutional.
[Though I wouldn't put it behind Sandra Day O'Conner to try.]
Yeah sure uh huh...
Like I said, it should be up to the States to police this issue....the Feds have no right to get involved beyond reaffirming their support through the DOMA.....
the SCOTUS can't toss a constitutional amendment out.
And do you really think that there wouldnt be an amendment saying that the SC could declare any specific amendment unconstitutional passed within the next 5 years after an amendment like this would be passed?
as I am finding, anything can and will happen in Congress anymore...
It's a state issue, you are correct - until a gay couple married in Massachucetts petitions a federal court (and wins) to sanction their marriage outside Mass.
would you agree at that point that it is no longer a state issue?
your "I don't care" attitude is playing right into the hands of the gays on the left. someday, when they are pumping this stuff into your kids at school, you'll care. but by then, there will be nothing that can be done to wipe these gay marriages off the books and declare them null and void.
The government voted to not futher inject themselves into our personel lives? That's very unusual.
Mike, c'mon. its almost impossible to amend it, adding another amendment giving the SCOTUS this power will never happen. it would essentially mean we have installed a monarchy, comprised of the Justices.
The Federal court should say that this issue is not for the Federal courts to decide, but being that the courts are not for judge of impartiality anymore but for political hacks on both sides (or so it seems), they will be able to hold the spotlight on their particular court if they make a ruling on the case, i.e. 15 minutes of fame...
I know, its a pipe dream, but a court that is politically impartial WAS the wish of the founding fathers and it certainly hasnt been quite followed through on in the past what about 10 years or so....
Normally, in personal family matters, that should be true. However, through the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, the courts will impose one definition of marriage on all the states. There is no way around it.
As a practical matter, it wouldn't work to have one state with homosexual marriage, another with child marriage, and another with legalized polygamy. Remember, Utah was required to step in line with the national understanding of marriage before it was allowed statehood in 1894.
The idea behind the Federal Marriage Amendment is to allow the people, not the courts, to decide what constitutes marriage.
Note that constitutional amendments aren't federal legislation; they require approval from both the Congress and the states. They are therefore a good compromise.
well sure, if they would do that, I don't think you would see this push for the amendment - it would remain a state issue.
but everybody knows that's not the way its going to go down.
When Utah was not permitted to enter the union until they aquiesced to the federal definition of marriage. That is your precedent. The feds defined marriage the states regualte. Ever it was, ever it shall be and you will know I am right when the SCOTUS equal protection ruling comes down in about two years from now when they decree the new "marriage paradigm".
I'm not looking to make enemies where I don't have to but the states rights bs is just that bs.
Good Lord Mike, you sound like a F911 acolyte.
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.