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]
click here to read article
Most Americans really don't care much about this issue.
It only directly affects those who are gay. I doubt the constitution will ever be changed for this purpose. Nor should it IMO.
No, but you are, Senator. Overripe, in fact.
The 52 Senators do NOT represent majority opinion on this subject. It bears repeating the elected representatives of the people can sometimes vote opposite to their desires. I do know for a fact if this measure were brought to a nationwide vote of the people, it would pass in a heartbeat. In a way I am pleased the N0-SHOWS (we know who they are) were just too cowardly to tell us where they stood on the most important issue of our time.
To my recollection, Hagel voted yes, McCain no.
On the other hand, you personally attacked me.
Oh well, we had some nasty losses before we got to the Battle of Midway.
Eagles still up.
Disgusting. These two are beneath contempt.
IIRC, that was due to Rove's machinations on behalf of W's re-election, W's sense of loyalty to Specter, and the re-registration of union members solely to interfere in the pubbie primary. That was quite a convergence, and it's no reason to give up in dispair. The last enduring, successful third party resulted from a momentous issue about 150 years ago.
Congress cannot remove "federal" appellate jurisdiction. It can only constrain the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (which would have the effect of making the circuit court the "court of last resort" setting the binding precedents for each district).
You're wrong. We are all born into the family. Its fate affects all of us regardless of whether we never marry and for those of us who do, it affects the health of our relationships and the welfare of our children. When the American people have the opportunity to affirm marriage, they have done so over the opposition or ignorance of our elites. The Senate may be closely divided on this issue but the vast majority of the American people know we need to preserve and strengthen it for posterity.
how are you going to keep it out of the public schools? once gay marriage is as legal as the marriages we have today, how are you going to stop gay activitists and the courts from forcing public schools to adopt this as part of the curriculum? can you imagine taking young children, who have not formed their own sense of reality on this topic due to their age and maturity level - from being taught that Eddie marrying Bobby is the same as Eddie marrying Susie?
Make that "womyn."
It is already too late. My 24 y/o staunchly Republican, Bush supporting, Rep. precinct chairperson niece and her 22 y/o staunchly Republican, poll working brother proclaimed to the whole family on Thanksgiving that they could care less if two guys or two women get married.
That certainly sounds closer to what I've seen in the polls.
Scuttle is a bad turn of words, it can be brought up again.
Particularly with a SENATOR DITAKA!
Well, I am worried the approach is " we tried, but it's impossible given the numbers.'' The longer Republicans fumble, the more the public will come to believe it's something they have to accept, whether the like it personally or not. That's the way it works.
SOMEBODY CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG HERE....
THE TWO NO-SHOW SENATE VOTES JUST NOW ON THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE WERE....****KERRY AND EDWARDS**** (???)
He showed up and didn't vote?????
People haven't seen the Left's in your face tactics yet. These people in the gay lobby won't be content with leaving things alone. As I've said before, they will overreach and it will be back on the floor of Congress.
Collins, Snowe, McCain and Hagel were the Republicans that voted against.
well sure, if the issue is framed only in the context of what adults do in private - then the balance shifts.
but as we all know, that is not the true agenda here for the gay activists. they don't just want tolerance, they want acceptance. and those are two totally different things. acceptance will turn the public schools into recruitment zones for homosexuality. confront your relatives with that reality.
You are very correct.
We need more "R" in office to make the Snows and Specters very disposable.
With a filibuster proof majority, the RINO's have less power. (they may even jump ship ala jeffords)
My friend, did the civil rights movement give up in the face of bad tidings? No, they regrouped to fight on. The marriage movement in this country is just getting started. And if the anti-family folks continue to assault the institution of marriage in this country, they will awaken a sleeping giant.
How does one keep anything out of the public schools? Pick any issue... Drug abuse, project DARE. Overeating, purging and dieting programs. Media bias, NY Times case studies. Racism, diversity programs. Local action, local control. States should provide competency testing for reading, writing and arithmetic so schools don't have time for nonsense. The problem is activist judges and the Constitution, gay marriage is just the latest issue.
The first principle of the State is to promote the common good. Since all members of society pass through the institution of the family, the State has a duty to promote the health of families and marriage.
"He showed up and didn't vote?????"
That's what I understand. A FoxNews.com story on the subject said that:
"Edwards was the guest speaker at the House Democrat's weekly caucus Wednesday but didn't stay for the vote."
Of course. But what struck me was that Republicans let them take the easy way out. If they had to vote on the language of the amendment directly, I wonder how many of the 52 would still have had the courage to vote NO? I think if brought to a direct vote, it would get 67 votes and possibly more. No Senator wants to be on record as being against marriage. Which is as American as apple pie. So I am confident about the future.
Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Nay
Bayh (D-IN), Nay
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Breaux (D-LA), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Campbell (R-CO), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Chafee (R-RI), Nay
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Nay
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Corzine (D-NJ), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Nay
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Nay
Dole (R-NC), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Edwards (D-NC), Not Voting
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Nay
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Nay
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Jeffords (I-VT), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Nay
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Not Voting
Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Nay
Lincoln (D-AR), Nay
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Nay
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Nay
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Nay
Talent (R-MO), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Nay
I don't see how the other issues you list apply. schools don't advocate drug use or overeating.
even in NYC, the most liberal public schools around, gay textbooks were beaten back a few years ago. once gay marriage is legal, there will be no basis for stopping it anywhere.
If you're right (and I don't believe you are), the solution to that problem is to have leadership speak up and warn the public on the importance of this issue. We have a president who can, but too many weak Senators.
If homosexual marriage is allowed, there is no rational basis on which to outlaw polygamy, incestuous marriage, and child marriage. There are individuals who want these kinds of marriage, and they will get what they want, once marriage is no longer defined as between one man and one woman.
Don't forget Nighthorse Campbell from CO as well.
R's voting against cloture were Campbell (CO), Collins (ME), Chafee (RI), McCain (AZ), Snowe (ME), and Sununu (NH). D's voting for cloture were Ben Nelson (NE), Byrd (WV), and Miller (GA).
It is conservative to preserve tradition and central to tradition is keeping the "little platoons" that make society run intact. It has nothing to do with keeping gays from living as they want. If all gays wanted was to live together that would be one thing. In truth, they are opposed to marriage since its a reminder a lifestyle built around hedonistic pleasure cannot long perpetuate the survival of civilization.
Republicans voting Nay:
Specter voted Yea!
Understood. I do agree that marriage is now dead. How can one now legally restrict marriage to only two people? How can one prevent marriage within families to take advantage of inheritence laws and avoid taxes? I know, just get a judge somewhere to agree. Ah welcome to the era of trial lawyers.
"Edwards was the guest speaker at the House Democrat's weekly caucus Wednesday but didn't stay for the vote."
Thanks for the info Kahonek
Yooo y'all .. Edwards was in DC and never voted ...
Looks like he's afraid of going to record too
That's more than I expected.
Because the primary duty of the State is to promote the common good. You can claim that these things don't serve to promote the common good if you want. I don't have any objection to either in principle.
Senate votes are at http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_108_2.htm
House votes are at href=http://clerk.house.gov/legisAct/votes.html
Here's the Senate vote for this one. (Note the two Johns were the only senators not voting)
Alexander (R-TN) Allard (R-CO) Allen (R-VA) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burns (R-MT) Byrd (D-WV) Chambliss (R-GA) Cochran (R-MS) Coleman (R-MN) Cornyn (R-TX) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) DeWine (R-OH) Dole (R-NC) Domenici (R-NM) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Fitzgerald (R-IL) Frist (R-TN) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Kyl (R-AZ) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) McConnell (R-KY) Miller (D-GA) Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-NE) Nickles (R-OK) Roberts (R-KS) Santorum (R-PA) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-OR) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Talent (R-MO) Thomas (R-WY) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA)
Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Breaux (D-LA) Campbell (R-CO) Cantwell (D-WA) Carper (D-DE) Chafee (R-RI) Clinton (D-NY) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Corzine (D-NJ) Daschle (D-SD) Dayton (D-MN) Dodd (D-CT) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Graham (D-FL) Harkin (D-IA) Hollings (D-SC) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Johnson (D-SD) Kennedy (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Landrieu (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (D-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) McCain (R-AZ) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sarbanes (D-MD) Schumer (D-NY) Snowe (R-ME) Stabenow (D-MI) Sununu (R-NH) Wyden (D-OR)
Not Voting - 2
Edwards (D-NC) Kerry (D-MA)
After 16 years of public school education I doubt if that would make much difference to them. Most young people have drank the Kool-Aid of the NEA/homosexual agenda they have been fed since kindergarten. They are both solidly, economic conservative heterosexuals, but when it comes to homosexuality they just see it as a 'not my business what they do' issue. And I don't think they are in the minority in their age group. I told my wife if the homosexuals would just sit back and wait a few years they would get everything they want without a fight. Their problem is they are totally into immediate gratification, as in I want it NOW. And sadly with the help of activist judges and the USSC they are getting it now.
On an up-or-down vote on the amendment, R's would probably have lost Smith, Specter, DeWine, Allen, Warner, Hagel, Stevens, and maybe more.
Only justification for the State is to protect rights. The common good is an empty concept altogether.
No they don't. On the contrary they advocate against such things and expend tax dollars to say it's bad. They are teaching something that is probably best left to parents. Nonetheless it is "in the public" schools.
We have many weak Senators but look at how many took a stand. They could have run for the tall grass on this. Look at this from the long-term view, my friends. This was but one skirmish in the fight about what America is going to be. The other side can only force America to accept gay marriage not through the democratic process but though judges imposing it against the wishes of the people. When they do that they will win the battle but lose the war. So far its looking a lot better from this observer's perspective than the media has led us to believe.
No, good news for our black robed rulers
AMEN......the black robed lawless judges will continue to " rule AGAINST" the Constitution!!!!!
Nope. Sen. Smith (one of my senators) is on board. He spoke in favor on the Senate floor the other day.
We should all remember these words. When homosexual marriage comes to South Dakota (if the USSC makes it a Consitutional right), then we ought to all remember that these words came from an alleged leader who is supposed to have vision.