[rface]

Gay marriage vote appears doomed ....... for now. The issue has lots of fire

[ladtx]

That will let Democrats who didn't want to cast a vote on the question of whether marriage should be limited to heterosexual couples breathing easier.

No it won't. It shows that they are afraid to show how they would vote. This issue can still be used against them.

[Publius]

Since the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress to propose an amendment, Senate proponents of the measure need 67 votes, a number they seemed unlikely to muster, at least this year.

Not completely true. The Constitution provides another method for proposing amendments.

”A Convention for Proposing Amendments…as Part of This Constitution”

[CzarNicky]

Force the vote and get all democrat senators who vote against it on record as having done so then wipe them out in November.

[Paleo Conservative]

Frist should force the Democrats to debate this issue on the floor. They should be forced to do a real filibuster where someone has to be talking at all times. I'd love to see the news filled with clips of DemocRATS saying why they oppose this amendment.

[snarkytart]

Ah the good ol' Senate Republicans. They are so useful to us aren't they?

[Antoninus]

Tactical victory, my @rse. Every time these swine are forced to vote against marriage and in favor of homo grotesqueries, it's a tactical victory for our side.

If I were Frist, I'd have a vote on this every week.

[Fee]

Dems dropped the gun issue after 2000. Now they may drop gay marriage in 2004. Where is Gun Control and Gays going to turn to? Nader??? In a three way America, GOP rules forever.

[newzjunkey]

I hope it fails and am prepared to rally against it. It's an abuse of the constitutional amendment process. The US Constitution is meant to restrict federal gov't's intrusiveness. In this country, "marriage" has always been the domain of the states and should remain so.

I love the politics of convenience around here.

[scory]

Lots of people say they are against homosexual "marriage" but when push comes to shove only a minority really care enough to try and actually do anything about it. The moral rot has spread far enough and weakened the national character enough that just about anything is open for discussion these days. The democrat party will NOT disavow homosexual "rights" or homosexual "marriage". The public will NOT rise up to end this and the democrats will discover that their stance on the issue is not the liability it at first appears to be. The courts will continue to advance the homosexual agenda; the politicians will continue to dance around the issue and in another few years (I predict by 2009) homosexual "marriage" will be the norm and those opposing it will be seen as extremist kooks and religious fanatics. I think that by 2010 homosexuals will receive the same legal preferences here that they do in many European countries and in Canada and opposition to their agenda will be effectively muzzled because it will mean large fines and/or jail time to oppose it.

I am feeling a bit pessimistic today.

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping. I don't know, the Senate pretty much seems like some giant dead animal that is starting to stink bad. Flies buzzing around.

I wish to God that the RINO Senators will be voted out very soon. How hard is it to recall Senators? Of course, it would be great to replace many of the D Senators with real conservative Republicans.

But even with the GOP majority, it seems very hard to get anything good done or bad prevented. [I do understand they need a larger majority to really have power. But they squander what they could have because of RINOS and their appeasing attitude in general. Go along to get along.] Look at the recent rider on the Defense Spending bill - adding "Sexual Orientation" to the already repulsive "Hate Crimes" list of preferred victims.

Big Tent Republicanism is just Nevill Chamberlain saying "peace in our time".

Let me know if you want on/off this pinglist.

P.S. If more states enact "gay" marriage permitting laws (if you can call it that, considering f'rinstance in MASS it was just a judge or two that reigned supreme) then the time has come for mass civil disobedience. Anyone - whether they call themselves Christian or any of the many varieties, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, whatever - who opposes the "gay" agenda should stand up and refuse to cooperate with "gay" marriage. Even at the cost of jobs, money, social approval, or whatever.

What is the use of gaining the world and losing the culture war? Letting the homosexual rights crowd rule the entire world? Keep in mind that if those of us opposed to promoting and normalizing deviance had fought this years ago, we would not be in the sorry pass we are currently sunk in. We should have known better, seen it coming. Primarily people are too entranced by the desire to be comfortable, "liked", and more or less asleep at the wheel.

[tortoise]

Just as well. This not an issue that required a Constitutional amendment and would have set a bad precedent. Regardless of whether one supports a ban on gay marriage, this was not the way to go about it.

[Prince Charles]

The Senate was the graveyard for the "Contract With America" and now it looks like the Rats and RINOs are once again up to their same old tricks.

[goldstategop]

Linguini-spined Republicans let Democrats escape again. Frist should have said the Senate will be in session on this issue until hell freezes over cause we will have an up or down vote. They let the Democrats chicken out on a winning issue for our side. <disgust

[longtermmemmory]

It is worth noting this "doomed" and uninsightful and poorly written article is from MSNBC.


This makes me think of the FedEx commerical "we'ree DOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!"

This will be revisited by Bush in a second term. Kerry will make homosexual marriage mandatory for children.