Posted on 07/18/2006 11:44:27 AM PDT by madprof98
WASHINGTON - The House on Tuesday rejected a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, ending for another year a congressional debate that supporters of the ban hope will still reverberate in this fall's election.
The 236-187 vote for the proposal to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman was 47 short of the two-thirds majority needed to advance a constitutional amendment. It followed six weeks after the Senate also decisively defeated the amendment, a top priority of social conservatives.
But supporters said the vote will make a difference when people got to the polls in November.
"The overwhelming majority of the American people support traditional marriage," said Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (news, bio, voting record), R-Colo., sponsor of the amendment. "And the people have a right to know whether their elected representatives agree with them."
Opponents dismissed the proposal as both discriminatory and legislatively irrelevant because of the Senate vote. The measure is "all for the purpose of pandering to a narrow political base." said Rep. Tammy Baldwin (news, bio, voting record), an openly gay Democrat from Wisconsin. "This hateful and unnecessary amendment is unworthy of our great Constitution."
The marriage amendment is part of the "American values agenda" the House is taking up this week that includes a pledge protection bill and a vote on President Bush's expected veto of a bill promoting embryonic stem cell research. Bush has asked, and social conservatives demanded, that the gay marriage ban be considered in the run-up to the election.
The White House, in a statement Tuesday, urged passage of the measure. "When activist judges insist on redefining the fundamental institution of marriage for their states or potentially for the entire country, the only alternative left to make the people's voice heard is an amendment of the Constitution."
The same-sex marriage debate mirrors that of the 2004 election year, when both the House and Senate fell well short of the two-thirds majority needed to send a constitutional amendment to the states. But the issue, in the form of state referendums, helped bring conservative voters to the polls.
One result has been that, while Congress stayed on the sidelines, state legislatures moved aggressively to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Forty-five states have either state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage or state statutes outlawing same-sex weddings. Even in Massachusetts, the only state that allows gay marriage, the state's high court recently ruled that a proposed constitutional amendment to ban future gay marriages can be placed on the ballot.
"Our momentum in the states is extremely strong and Washington is playing catch-up," said Matt Daniels, president of the Alliance for Marriage.
Daniels, who was involved in drafting the amendment's language, said it was essential that Congress eventually set a national standard. Members of Congress are "the only hope for seeing marriage protected in this country and they should be on record."
But Rep. Barney Frank (news, bio, voting record), an openly gay Democrat from Massachusetts, said the amendment would prevent states such as his own, where thousands of same-sex couples have married over the past 2 1/2 years, from making decisions on what constitutes marriage.
"I do not understand what motivates you," Frank said Monday, addressing Republicans on the Rules Committee. "I don't tell you who to love."
The proposed amendment says that "marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither the Constitution, nor the constitution of any state, 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."
One conservative group, the Traditional Values Coalition, said it was a "good thing for traditional marriage" that the measure was unlikely to pass because it wasn't clear enough in ruling out civil unions between gays.
"We have just won several important court decisions in the past few weeks," said the coalition's executive director, Andrea Lafferty, but the amendment's proponents "are still playing 'Let's make a deal' with the liberals and the homosexual lobby."
The Senate took up the measure last month but fell 11 short of the 60 votes needed to advance the legislation to a final vote. The last House vote on the issue, just a month before the 2004 election, was 227-186 in favor of the amendment, 39 short of the two-thirds majority needed to advance a constitutional amendment.
The U.S. Constitution has been amended only 27 times, including the 10 amendments of the Bill of Rights. In addition to two-thirds congressional approval, a proposed amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the states.
___
The amendment is HJ Res 88.
Pryce from Ohio is a sell out. I dont like her anymore.
But you know the STUPID party (GOP) won't make this a campaign issue. They don't like to talk about those on "controversial lifestyles{ for fear of being vilified. Too often the GOP has NO BACKBONE and this "big tent" crap fuels it.
But you know the STUPID party (GOP) won't make this a campaign issue. They don't like to talk about those "controversial lifestyles" for fear of being vilified.
Too often the GOP has NO BACKBONE and this "big tent" crap fuels it.
No freakin' balls.
Victory Fund Annual Report cofounded by David Mixner.
http://www.victoryfund.org/clientuploads/documents/Victory_2003_E-Resolution.pdf
The Gay & Lesbian Fund provides financial support to openly lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender candidates and officials.
Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund 2004 Annual Report
http://www.victoryfund.org/clientuploads/documents/Victory_2004_Annual_Report.pdf
The RINO's fund is under a different name than the Victory Fund; but comes from the same source. I'm cooking dinner and can post that URL if it is needed. I don't have it in my notepad past...but it is in my file folder.
I agree - a matter for the states to decide. I WOULD like to see an amendment making the issue off limits to SCOTUS though.
Thanks for posting.
David Dreier and Mary Bono go Rainbow.
The rest of our California (R) contingent voted Yea.
Of course, the California Dems all voted Nay.
>>>The RINO's fund is under a different name than the Victory Fund; but comes from the same source. I'm cooking dinner and can post that URL if it is needed. I don't have it in my notepad past...but it is in my file folder.
http://www.logcabin.org
The Log Cabin Republicans belongs to the LGBT community. A federal political action committee working to build new alliances in the gay and lesbian community in the Republican Party.
He's my representative. His district is a pie-wedge shape that includes a chunk of the City of Chicago at the tip and some of the SW suburbs at the fat end. The Dems in the City outweigh the surburbanites, who split between Dem and Repub anyway.
His father represented the area for a great many terms. He rarely faced serious opposition during either primary or general elections. After he won his last primary (very comfortably), he resigned and arranged for the Democratic Central Committee to appoint his son as his successor in the general election. His son have to move from Tennesee into the district to qualify. Although much scandal was printed about this arrangement, he won comfortably. And I expect that he'll win comfortably again. He's probably trying to bridge the two constituencies between the City (who would follow the Democrat party line) and the suburbs (more conservative). He generally votes more conservative than almost any other Democrat in the House, which reflects his district.
Perhaps it is a bad idea. But the threat of it (say, 10 or 12 states voting for one right off the bat) would scare the Congress enough for it to vote this out to the states.
Mary Bono is endorsed by the Log Cabin Republicans, ie., LGBT community.
They have a contract that has to be signed to receive the endorsement which includes what issues they have to endorse to receive the donations. They also have to be gay to receive the money.
Is such a thing legal?
Frankly, the nation is so overwhelmingly against gay marriage that I just don't see it as an insurmountable threat. I think the states will do it, and I just don't see SCOTUS making it the law of the land--on what legal grounds would they do so?
I would have to say that's a rarity. And on an issue much less on the minds of most people. But we will see.
List, I presume.
The 236-187 vote for the proposal to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman was 47 short of the two-thirds majority needed to advance a constitutional amendment. It followed six weeks after the Senate also decisively defeated the amendment, a top priority of social conservatives.
Sooner or later the FMA will happen...
WHY? -- Because the homosexual agenda acrtivists will not stop UNTIL stopped -that is the nature of those intent on self destruction...
;-)
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.