Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Defense of Marriage Act. U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 104th Congress. September 10, 1996
Senate.gov ^ | September 10, 1996 | US Senate

Posted on 06/06/2006 7:30:33 AM PDT by rface

**According to Sen. Kennedy, biggots oppose giving homosexuals the right to marry. The DOM act was promoted by Pres. Clinton and was overwhelmingly approved by the US Senate and House. Here's the wording of that act and here's the role call.....and the list of Kennedy's biggots. Kennedy did not support the DOM act.

1 . Defense of Marriage Act (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)[H.R.3396.ENR]

(you might have to cut/past this address to get the link)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c104:1:./temp/~c104busXY4::

One Hundred Fourth Congress of the United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

An Act To define and protect the institution of marriage.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Defense of Marriage Act'.

SEC. 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 1738B the following:
`Sec. 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof `No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.'.

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1738B the following new item: `1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof.'.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: `Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse' `In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'.

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 6 the following new item:

`7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'.'. Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: doma; homosexualagenda
YEAs: 85
NAYs: 14
Not Voting: 1

.

YEAs ---85

I highlighted persons of interest ......

Abraham (R-MI)
Ashcroft (R-MO)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Bradley (D-NJ)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brown (R-CO)
Bryan (D-NV)
Bumpers (D-AR)
Burns (R-MT)
Byrd (D-WV)
Campbell (R-CO)
Chafee (R-RI)
Coats (R-IN)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cohen (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coverdell (R-GA)
Craig (R-ID)
D'Amato (R-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Exon (D-NE)
Faircloth (R-NC)
Ford (D-KY)
Frahm (R-KS)
Frist (R-TN)
Glenn (D-OH)
Gorton (R-WA)
Graham (D-FL)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grams (R-MN)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hatfield (R-OR)
Heflin (D-AL)
Helms (R-NC)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Jeffords (R-VT)
Johnston (D-LA)
Kassebaum (R-KS)
Kempthorne (R-ID)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Mack (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nickles (R-OK)
Nunn (D-GA)
Pressler (R-SD)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Roth (R-DE)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Shelby (R-AL)
Simpson (R-WY)
Smith (R-NH)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Warner (R-VA)
Wellstone (D-MN)

1 posted on 06/06/2006 7:30:36 AM PDT by rface
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rface
NAYs ---14

Akaka (D-HI)
Boxer (D-CA)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerrey (D-NE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Moseley-Braun (D-IL)
Moynihan (D-NY)
Pell (D-RI)
Robb (D-VA)
Simon (D-IL)
Wyden (D-OR)

2 posted on 06/06/2006 7:32:13 AM PDT by rface ("...the most schizoid freeper I've ever seen" - New Bloomfield, Missouri)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rface

Keep talking Teddy


3 posted on 06/06/2006 7:32:55 AM PDT by Mo1 (DEMOCRATS: A CULTURE OF TREASON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

It looks to me like the importance of this whole Marriage Amendment that Bush is touting is because of the fear that certain State courts will rule that their State can ignore their citizens when/if they vote to declare marriage as between one man and one woman because it is discriminatory.

I believe that Massachusetts voters stated that Marriage is to be between one man and one woman - but the State Supreeme Court overturned the vote of the people.....

4 posted on 06/06/2006 7:38:01 AM PDT by rface ("...the most schizoid freeper I've ever seen" - New Bloomfield, Missouri)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rface
Defense of Marriage Act. U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 104th Congress. September 10, 1996

What’s your point? It’s a ten-year old vote, where RINO’s and DemonRats voted “yea” without any impact, as liberal activist judges have long since invalidated the statute.

5 posted on 06/06/2006 7:53:39 AM PDT by stillonaroll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rface

"even here in England that would be considered a clear case of self-defence."

It also told the legislature they had to pass a law permitting same sex marriage.


6 posted on 06/06/2006 8:10:23 AM PDT by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: stillonaroll
as liberal activist judges have long since invalidated the statute.

When did that happen?

7 posted on 06/06/2006 8:36:45 AM PDT by conserv13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rface

Neither of SD's Senators are listed. One Dem One Rep.


8 posted on 06/06/2006 9:03:08 AM PDT by wita (truthspeaks@freerepublic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wita

Daschle was your Senator in '96


9 posted on 06/06/2006 9:05:02 AM PDT by rface ("...the most schizoid freeper I've ever seen" - New Bloomfield, Missouri)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: wita

...and now I see why. Pressler and Daschle, that was a long time ago.


10 posted on 06/06/2006 9:05:29 AM PDT by wita (truthspeaks@freerepublic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: wita

Pressler was the other


11 posted on 06/06/2006 9:05:57 AM PDT by rface ("...the most schizoid freeper I've ever seen" - New Bloomfield, Missouri)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Comment #12 Removed by Moderator

To: Chelle Stockman
a comparison.....

Statement of Fact: High Schoolers graduate HS and too many of them can't read or write. The value of a HS Diploma is getting lower and lower.
QUESTION: Should we, as a society, allow this deterioration to continue...and perhaps even allow more and more unqualified students to graduate? Should we accept the further errosion of the value of a HS Diploma, or should we do something that makes this diploma worth something?

Statement of Fact: The State of Marriage has deteriorated over the last several decades.....for many reasons that you have listed.
QUESTION: Should we, as a society, allow this deterioration to continue...and perhaps even allow more and more unqualified people to marry? Should we accept the further errosion of the value of amarriage, or should we do something that makes marriage worth something more than what it currently is? Some people say "let it deteriorate" I say, lets examine the problems and do something to strengthen this institution.

No-Fault divorce might be something to look at, as well as many of the other issues you have brought up. Further diluting the institution of marriage does not strengthen marriage. It weakens our communities.

13 posted on 06/06/2006 12:17:57 PM PDT by rface ("...the most schizoid freeper I've ever seen" - New Bloomfield, Missouri)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: conserv13
…as liberal activist judges have long since invalidated the statute.

When did that happen?

I must’ve been thinking of state court liberal activist judges, rather than federal court liberal activist judges. The statute still stands at the federal level, but I’ve heard commentators over the last couple of years say that it is vulnerable to a “constitutional” attack in federal court, thus necessitating an amendment to the Constitution.

14 posted on 06/06/2006 12:35:51 PM PDT by stillonaroll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Chelle Stockman
So why don't we ask our Representatives to stick to issues like controlling subversive attacks we make in other lands to gain control of energy providing resources?

Be Gone Leftist Troll!!!

15 posted on 06/06/2006 12:59:31 PM PDT by DBeers ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: rface
Did you get see how Martinez voted from NJ? He took Daddy Warbucks place.

He is going to have a difficult election if he voted against it..

16 posted on 06/06/2006 1:03:10 PM PDT by mware (Americans in armchairs doing the job of the media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rface; AFA-Michigan; AggieCPA; Agitate; AliVeritas; AllTheRage; An American In Dairyland; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping!

If you oppose the homosexualization of society
-add yourself to the ping list!

To be included in or removed from the
HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA PING LIST,
please FReepMail either DBeers or DirtyHarryY2k.

Free Republic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword = homosexualagenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

FYI -the 1996 DOMA vote -- Yays & Nays...

Apparently EVEN some dummicrats were bigoted homophobes wishing to debate this non-issue and then shockingly enact discriminatory legislation...

17 posted on 06/06/2006 1:04:01 PM PDT by DBeers ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rface

Good question. Others here might look at such conservative thinking and conclude it nothing but the droolings of a leftist troll. Unfortunately, they have a right to post here too. Keep up the good posts.


18 posted on 06/06/2006 2:28:01 PM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: rface

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court majority has slandered all of us who think that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.


19 posted on 06/28/2013 9:24:36 PM PDT by guitarist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson