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.
Certainly they all are but the anti federalists are especially restless in these times of courts making law.
Sure lets throw that around a bit....
The only thing I can say that is positive about that crappy movie is that the movie is pretty well made. The substance of the movie is utter crap, but film itself was well made....
and he only won the canned film festival because it was in France and therefore canned, not because that movie was any better than any of the other movies there.....
Great.
And the reason that these hypothetical homosexual lifetime partners cannot write a personal services contract and reciprocal wills under existing law, in fact under common law as it has existed for millenia, is what?
The trick is to go after the other guy's arguments and weaken or destroy them, without causing the chap to dislike you. I have a lot of practice in endeavoring to do that. Of course, I need to try to do that, since given that I take the minority position with sufficient frequency, otherwise I would probably be bounced from this neighborhood. :)
“At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life" (Casey vs. Planned Parenthood, 1992).
I would say that, by a fair reading of these decisions, that polygamy is a SLAM-DUNK CERTAINTY.
Don't forget to get the word out about the following. I posted the whole thing, and it's easy to find.
US Senate Vote Against the Marriage Amendment (Roll Call--names, all of that)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1171531/posts
News Anchor Dan Rather and Peter Jennings, NPR Reporter Cokie Roberts and a U.S. Marine were hiking through the desert one day when they were captured by Iraqis. They were tied up, led to the village and brought before the leader.
The leader said, "I am familiar with your western custom of granting the condemned a last wish. Before we kill and dismember you, do you have any last requests?"
Dan Rather said, "Well, I'm a Texan; so I'd like one last bowl full of hot, spicy chili."
The leader nodded to an underling who left and returned with the chili. Rather ate it all and said, "Now I can die content."
Peter Jennings said "I am Canadian; so I'd like to hear the English National Anthem one last time".
The leader nodded to a terrorist who studied the United States and knew the music was the same as to 'God Bless America'. He returned with some rag-tag musicians and played the music. Jennings sighed and declared he could now die peacefully.
Cokie Roberts said, "I'm a reporter to the end. I want to take out my tape recorder and describe the scene here and what's about to happen. Maybe someday someone will hear it and know that I was on the job till the end."
The leader directed an aide to hand over the tape recorder and Roberts dictated some comments. She then said, "Now I can die happy."
The leader turned and said, "And now, Mr. U.S. Marine, what is your final wish?"
"Kick me in the áss," said the Marine."
"What?" asked the leader. "Will you mock us in your last hour?"
"No, I'm not kidding. I want you to kick me in the áss," insisted the Marine.
So the leader shoved him into the open, and kicked him in the áss. The Marine went sprawling, but rolled to his knees, pulled a 9mm pistol from inside his cammies, and shot the leader dead. In the resulting confusion, he leapt to his knapsack, pulled out his M4 carbine, and sprayed the Iraqis with gunfire. In a flash, the Iraqis were dead or fleeing for their lives.
As the Marine was untying Rather, Jennings and Roberts, they asked him, "Why didn't you just shoot them? Why did you ask them to kick you in the áss?"
"What!?" said the Marine, "And have you three ássholes call ME the aggressor?"
Yes, it is a cartel, just one, "big" happy "family".
Create a caucus within a party instead of a new party.
No biggie. Banning gay marriage is an undue gov't intrustion into the private realm, anyways. If two gays want to get married, it is no skin off my nose..
LOL.
Yep. back in the mid-90's, most of them. Back when Bill Clinton was willing to sign the DOMA. Back when my US Senator, Patty Murray was willing to put on her kneepads to help Bubba get re-elected. I see Peppermint Patty (or Osama Mama, as she is also known), voted against the FMA today. There are different political realities today, in the "Will and Grace" era.
They are in for one big surprise when SCOTUS uses equal protection to overturn their laws and constituional amendments.
Yes, it's certainly possible. A good reason to get your union labor friends who usually vote Rat to vote Republican this year. This war will ultimately go to the liberals, but we may as well win a few battles along the way. The gay marriage genie is out of the bottle, and will not be put back. Best to exploit some temporary fear among the mushy middle, and keep Kerry and his friends out of office.
And note where it's going: "Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the . . . number of persons entering into a marriage unit." I.e., the gay agenda foresees polygamy in its future.
Thanks but no thanks, I don't run with defeatists.
I'm not a Massachusetts resident, but if I were, I think that it might well be in order. I would at least persuade my legislators that my state should not be one of only three which does not make its Supreme Court Justices stand for re-election.
Don't you see that, just as the MA court turned the law on its head, any other judge could do the same with regards to polygamy?
If we ever get a SCOTUS ruling on polygamy in the same vein as Lawrence vs. Texas was, yes, it might be possible for a rogue Supreme Court of a state to do this. I cannot imagine it happening, however. Can you see Ruth Bader Ginsberg letting a Utah polygamist off the hook, after he parades his subservient "wives" in front of the Court? I sure can't.
"Will of the majority," indeed!"
This was NOT a vote for gay marriage, this was a vote dealing with amending the Constitution to prevent gay marriage. Check the polls, you'll find uniformly, that there is less support for amending the Constitution than there is for gay marriage.
Once the case reaches the Supreme Court, polygamy laws will have to be overturned, consistent with Lawrence--unless the court wants to rescind that recent decision, which they will not do, or admit its contradiction. Justice Scalia's dissent in Lawrence said as much.
Justice Scalia's hyperbole notwithstanding, there has never been a SCOTUS decision (or that of any lower court, or even that of a court in another Western civilization) that has ruled in favor of polygamy. It is a different issue! I don't know how to convey to my fellow conservatives that everybody besides them views it as such. Homosexuality has some empathy in this country, polygamists are looked on as manipulative evil little men intent on dominating and subjugating women, while the women are looked upon as mindless brainwashed idiots for going along with polygamist's twisted interpretation of religion. If liberals don't back it, and conservatives don't want it, it ain't gonna happen!
Polygamy has been practiced historically, biblically, and is currently widely practiced throughout the world.
This is the primary reason liberals will never back it, its associated exclusively with patriarchal cultures that liberals condemn. This is one of the areas where liberals and conservatives are united.
And the notion that polygamy shouldn't be legalized because it's "only a tiny fringe" isn't a valid argument--and, meaning no offense, betrays a naive approach on your part to the issue.
In order for a change to happen in our society, it needs a sizable (although not majority) constituency. Other than a few religious whackos that keep getting beaten down in court, there is no constituency in favor of polygamy.
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.