Skip to comments.Senate Scuttles Gay Marriage Amendment (Two no-shows. Care to guess?)
Posted on 07/14/2004 9:50:28 AM PDT by 11th Earl of MarEdited 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.
1. Pass this amendment (or one very similar to it)
2. Accept homogamy
There are no other options. The courts will decide if there is no amendment. Anyone who opposes this amendment supports homosexual "marriage."
So go get a new party. Be sure to write now and then so we know you're still doing okay.
Garbage. That was just cover to play in the mushy middle. The homosexuals are winning the day and the family is under attack.
Why don't you go elsewhere? I was here first. By four days. :-)
Kerry does not oppose gay marriage. He just opposes being unpopular on the issue. He didn't even vote for the DOMA. He wants gays to have marriage by another name -- even full federal recognition.
I had expected it would be worse. We are in better shape than thought. Its NOT over. This is simply Round #1 of a very long fight.
No, we just need a new Majority Leader. "Limp Wrist" Frist just 'aint cutting it. Everything was going swell until he allowed debate on the "watered-down" version simultaneously, which led the Dems to change strategy, and alter the focus. Idiot.
Homogamy? I like that as a term for it. Up to this point I've been calling it matrihomony!
Hey, it's GOP über alles around here. Watch your step.
Olympia Snow! What an embarassment to all American-Greeks.
There is a particular greek word starting with p ending with a that i am using to describe her.
Nonsense. They'll be forgotten by Friday.
Because, as so many here on FR will attest: "If you don't blindly vote for Republicans in every single instance, you're voting for the terrorists!"
So, case closed.
I stole that from John Derbyshire, of National Review.
Pardon me for asking, but is there any chance one of you could get the roll call vote, and the other write out the particulars so that others can do it next time? I've gone to "Thomas" before, but I just wind up getting frustrated trying to get roll call votes.
Then perhaps it's time to familiarize yourself with the forum rules.
The Amendment would have left the matter to the states. It was a compromise Amendment. Of course the media would never report that. What pro-family people really wanted was language that would settle the issue for good ala Utah being forced to ban polygamy.
We need term limits. These Clowns don't need to respect our opinions.
Every one said we would get only a third of the votes. Turns out we are 19 short. This means we have our work cut out for us. But this issue is NOT going to go away. The amendment will certainly be back if liberal activist judges keep trying to undermine marriage. Count on it.
<< "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." >>
There isn't any confusion or ambiguity in California either, you moron.
But that didn't stop a rogue mayor.
Hey, how about we get all Gov't OUT of the marriage business and keep it as part of religions where it belongs. I was extremely annoyed that I had to get a liscense or permission from some Gov't stooge to get married. I don't see what marriage has to do with the Gov't and/or the Constitution.
HR. 3313 only requires a SIMPLE majority vote to pass, and it will remove the Federal appellate jurisdiction from the DOMA. While Federal District Courts could still hear cases arriving out of the act, Trial Court Decisions CANNOT be used as Precedent in the Stare Decisis doctrine.
Therefore Individual States will not have to accept "marriage" licenses from other states.
Further, the people in MA are going to vote in 2006 on their own amendment, and I am confident that they will do the right thing, Even Ultra-Liberal Kalifornia wouldn't stoop to supporting the perversion of marriage.
Further every single RAT who cried about leaving this issue to the states, now has NO argument when HR. 3313 comes up for a vote, and neither do the deviant libertines, unless they want to say, they are for the destruction of marriage.
The RATS and Libertarians are in a corner now.
Further, the House is also going to debate the Amendment, and changes will be made.
DON'T GIVE UP, Keep on the Senators.
If all else fails, we always have the option that our Founders Used:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Without hearing the news or reading any replies, I'd say john F'ing & john edwards.
I just heard on the radio that Collins, Snowe, McCain and Hagel were the Republicans that voted against.
I believe it needed 60 votes, since it was a vote on whether to continue debate.
Yeah, need a conservative party.
Was that the original amendment or the revised version?
That's true if today's vote was on the amendment. I believe this 47-50 vote concerned allowing the debate to continue.
We didn't get a majority. But we showed surprising strength on the issue the Left and the media consider controversial. The majority of the Senate did NOT reflect the true sentiment of the country. This debate is by no means over. We simply live to fight another day and since the Left is arrogant, they will ultimately do something stupid. Which is what I am expecting down the road.
By my count and from what I heard, McCAIN, SNOWE and COLLINS were in that sellout, libertine crowd of GOP votes to shut off debate on the F.M.A. I can't think of the other ones right now. But they'll surface. And when they do........
Great. That's typical of a response by a group that want NOTHING TO HAPPEN. With thinking as such there would never have been a Roe v Wade. Today is this issue. Next week will be another & the true conservatives will be ousted by 4 other pubbies with another BS excuse. But they know that if they bucked under then the elites will shread them but you voters will vote for them next time. Then you can wallow in more PC lib crapola votes from the next wave of so-called conservatives.
I didn't say the GOP were at 75%-80% in the polls. I said they can't even win on an issue that 75%-80% agree with their position. Even here in California the numbers are like that. If they have to run away from issues that are in their favor, where are they going to win?
It was one original Amendment. But many wanted a tougher ban.
The exact same way it's prohibited in California, right? So what were those licenses they gave out in San Fran? And who's been charged with breaking that law? Oh, that would be NO ONE.
I imagine some of the RINOs actually voted for this and were going to vote against it in the final vote.
The amend defines marriage. Usually simple definitions of words used in fed law are placed in the US Code. The only way to prevent some perverted leftist from tossing out the definition and replacing it with an all inclusive rainbow def, is to palce it right in the Constitution where it belongs. That way marriage retains it's traditional meaning of a mutually agreed to contract between one man and one woman.
If this is not a Constitution issue, then there are many state issues that need to be considered.
Why should I have to pay federal gas taxes for road that I will never drive? Why should I have federal taxes taken out of my paycheck for services I will never render?
On the other hand, you personally attacked me.
Perhaps it's you that needs to review the forum rules.
Not to mention all of the rogue judges.
They are certainly uncorking the champagne bottles in Castro District of S.F., West Hollywood and Greenwich Village right about this time
(and those corks...and gerbils for that matter, might come in mighty handy later)....
what other remedy is possible? the SCOTUS likely has 6 votes to toss the federal DOMA. What's left?
People like Kerry who say they "oppose" gay marriage know exactly what the plan is to ram this down people's throats using the courts. They are in favor of simply letting that plan go forward; the end result is the same. Its a dishonest position to take.
I agree. Look how it turned out the last time an amendment was passed to control people's behavior.
Today, when a concerned effort is made to obliterate this point, it cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals - that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government - that it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizens's protection against the government.--Ayn Rand, "The Nature of Government", 1964
I quite understand about Gov't benefits and I do collect them myself (as a married taxpayer). Since I chose to pay fewer taxes does not mean I approve of Gov't involvment in marriage. Nonetheless, I believe the real reason that Gov't is in the marriage business was to protect children and to encourage their care by giving breaks to families and thus encourage that lifestyle.
The judges, as they have for decades. They use the Constitution as toilet paper.
Get in touch with the New York State Conservative Party to see how they got started. Our Republican Party here is the most RINO of all, and the leadership now has the party completely locked up, with no room for dissent. That could happen everywhere if people let it.
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.