Senate debates Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage

[Joe]

I'd rather this not turn into a Gay Marriage Debate, but I just wanted to talk about this amendment that was turned down the other day and how it will affect any possibility of passing it.

Originally Posted by AP

WASHINGTON - The Senate on Wednesday rejected a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, dealing a defeat to President Bush and Republicans who hope to use the measure to energize conservative voters on Election Day.

Supporters knew they wouldn’t achieve the two-thirds vote needed to approve a constitutional amendment, but they had predicted a majority of votes. Instead, they fell one short, 49-48.

That was one vote more than they got last time the Senate voted on the matter, in 2004. Later that year, Republicans gained four seats in the Senate.

“We were hoping to get over 50 percent, but that didn’t happen today,” said Sen. David Vitter, R-La., one of the amendment’s supporters. “Eventually, Congress is going to have to catch up to the wisdom of the American people or the American people will change Congress for the better.”

“We’re not going to stop until marriage between a man and a woman is protected,” said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.

Wednesday’s vote fell 11 short of the 60 required to send the matter for an up-or-down tally in the Senate. The 2004 vote was 48-50.

Bush: ‘The people must be heard’
Bush said he was disappointed by the vote, but it often takes time to amend the Constitution.

“Our nation’s founders set a high bar for amending our Constitution and history has shown us that it can take several tries before an amendment builds the two-thirds support it needs in both houses of Congress,” the president said in a statement.

“My position on this issue is clear; marriage is the most fundamental institution of our society, and it should not be redefined by activist judges. The people must be heard on this issue,” the statement continued.

Supporters lost three key “yes” votes. Two Republicans changed their votes from yes in 2004 to no this time: Sens. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. And Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., did not vote this time because he was traveling with Bush.

7 Republicans vote against
All told, seven Republicans voted to kill the amendment. The four others were Sens. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Susan Collins of Maine, John McCain of Arizona, Olympia Snowe of Maine and John Sununu of New Hampshire.

Gregg said that in 2004, he believed the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in that state would undermine the prerogatives of other states, like his, to prohibit such unions.

“Fortunately, such legal pandemonium has not ensued,” Gregg said in a statement. “The past two years have shown that federalism, not more federal laws, is a viable and preferable approach.”

First of all, having personally known Gregg, this is a total shock to me.

But, since the Republicans not only didn't get the needed 60 for cloture, but they didn't even get the 50 they thought they'd get. How do you think this will affect it getting passed? The Republicans would not have had this passed even if all 7 Republicans that were against it voted for it. If it were the actually amendment, the Republicans would not need only 11 more votes, but 18.

In your opinion, how does this affect:
1) it getting passed in the Senate?
2) it getting passed in the House of Reps?
3) it getting ratified by 38 states?
4) it's affect on Republican seats in November?

a) more importantly, how dumb were Sen. Vitter's statements?

[Reaganista]

wow Republikkkan senator Arlen 'magic bullet' Specter manages to stop hating homosexuals?

maybe there's hope for amerikans in general, then.

[Against Miik!]

Good that it didn't pass. It astounds me though that not only grown educated men, but grown educated men who have achieved a position of power like this can be so ignorant.

[Dave de Sylvia]

“We’re not going to stop until marriage between a man and a woman is protected,” said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.

I don't get why these people just can't say "I don't want gays marrying". They always have to cloak it in this "protecting marriage between a man and a woman" crap.

[Joe]

Originally Posted by Spat Out Plath

I don't get why these people just can't say "I don't want gays marrying". They always have to cloak it in this "protecting marriage between a man and a woman" crap.

I agree. It's really all they're saying. They're basically saying "gay people don't deserve the same rights we do."

Old, white, male conservatives have said that about women and minorities for hundreds of years and they've been lost quite a bit in the past few decades

[thedeadwalk!]

On Conan O'Brien:

Celebrity Survey: As the situation in Iraq worstens, we must not:

Hilary Clinton: Lose our morale.

John Kerry: Bring in more troops.

George Bush: Allow gay people to marry.

[AKid2]

Originally Posted by i am miik

Good that it didn't pass. It astounds me though that not only grown educated men, but grown educated men who have achieved a position of power like this can be so ignorant.

I feel the same way. It's an awful way to approach innate dispositions. What is the foundation for anti-gay marriage? Is it the bible?

[ringworm]

^^^ Uh, nature?

[italic zero]

Really? I had no idea raccoons were getting married nowadays.

[StreetlightRock]

Flies turn gay when the tempreture rises.

[italic zero]

Yeah but who wants to be like a fly.

[Amit]

Woohoo!

[PerpetualBurn]

“We’re not going to stop until marriage between a man and a woman is protected,”

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at how stupid that is.

[StreetlightRock]

Originally Posted by italic zero

Yeah but who wants to be like a fly.

Flies are free from the social order and dont have to abide by the standards set by the system of oppression that is prevalent in much of the world today. The Ultimate Anarchists. Who WOULDNT want to be a fly?

I mean, jeez, changing your sexual orientation depending on the Tempreture? The only dudes that got a one up on them are the Oysters. And no one f'ucks with the Oysters.

[PerpetualBurn]

Who WOULDNT want to be a fly?

One day lifespan?

[ringworm]

Originally Posted by StreetlightRock

Who WOULDNT want to be a fly?

[url=http://www.putfile.com]http://f5.putfile.com/6/15911033898.jpg[/url]

[StreetlightRock]

*ahem* 2 weeks.

Long enough to [url=http://www.delijst.net/delijst/filedump/18+%20movie%20posters/Return%20of%20The%20Fly%20(1959).jpg]Tear s'hit up[/url]. F'uck them swats.

Ill stop spamming now. Carry on.

In case no one got the Oyster thing, they change sex depending on the tempreture. I wont go into the sea munchkins that are asexual or the ones that do Penis fencing.

[ringworm]

Originally Posted by Joe

Old, white, male conservatives have said that about women and minorities for hundreds of years and they've been lost quite a bit in the past few decades

And look at where we are now?

It's not about hating homosexuals, it's about a union that was designed for a man & woman, that's all.
They need to invent another type of union & leave marriage alone IMO.
They have all the rights ANY other person has, just not this one, what's the big deal, oh, yeah, insurance rates that are cheaper for them that will probably just make everyone elses skyrocket.

Marriage is SO straightlaced & Church oriented, I don't see why they would even want this. They are basically wanting an organization that thinks they are going to hell for their lifestyle to "marry" them? I don't get it.
I dont care what race, creed, lifestyle, etc you are, but leave an event that was designed for specific people alone.
To me all they are up to is trying to agrrevate these conservative "Old White Men" and nothing else.

Hopefully it will pass, but I doubt it.

[Jude]

Originally Posted by Joe

In your opinion, how does this affect:
1) it getting passed in the Senate?
2) it getting passed in the House of Reps?
3) it getting ratified by 38 states?
4) it's affect on Republican seats in November?

1. Never had a chance
2. Never had a chance
3. Never had a chance
4. We'll see...I really don't know how important of an issue this is even to hardcore Republicans. It's clearly an attempt by Republicans to get their base all fired up for the elections, but they may also end up alienating more moderate members. I think the carryover from the anti-Bush sentiments will have a much bigger effect on November's elections than this.

I don't see why this is even an issue. If the state completely stayed out of the "marriage" business, we wouldn't have these problems. I don't know why the nuclear family is of such value to the state. Any two or more people who live together for an extended period of time (whether just friends, straight or gay lovers/spouses, siblings, whatever) should be able to get "marriage" benefits but that that's as far as it should go in the eyes of the law. Whether you're "married" or not can be dealt with in your individual religious or social group. It doesn't need to be legally sanctioned.

Originally Posted by ringworm

It's not about hating homosexuals, it's about a union that was designed for a man & woman, that's all.

Who cares though? If they followed my above suggestion it would be a non-issue.

Originally Posted by ringworm

Marriage is SO straightlaced & Church oriented, I don't see why they would even want this. They are basically wanting an organization that thinks they are going to hell for their lifestyle to "marry" them? I don't get it.
I dont care what race, creed, lifestyle, etc you are, but leave an event that was designed for specific people alone.

What? There's more to marriage than the traditional Christian conception.

To me all they are up to is trying to agrrevate these conservative "Old White Men" and nothing else.

No. All the gay people are up to is trying to get legal recognition for something that straight people already have. The Old White Men are the ones trying to stop them because they think the state should be in the business of protecting religious and social traditions, which it should not.

[Steerpike]

My position on this issue is clear; marriage is the most fundamental institution of our society, and it should not be redefined by activist judges.

The fact that it isn't aside, has anyone else noticed that they're only activist judges if they disgree with you?

Originally Posted by Spat Out Plath

I don't get why these people just can't say "I don't want gays marrying". They always have to cloak it in this "protecting marriage between a man and a woman" crap.

Because "protecting the sanctity of marriage" sounds more righteous and holier-than-thou.

Originally Posted by ringworm

It's not about hating homosexuals, it's about a union that was designed for a man & woman, that's all.

Which we've managed to screw up quite effectively without gay people already. I fail to see how they'd make it any worse.

They need to invent another type of union & leave marriage alone IMO.

That's a superstitious idea at best.

They have all the rights ANY other person has, just not this one,

Have you tried saying that out loud?

Marriage is SO straightlaced & Church oriented,

Which is why the Mesopotamians invented it.

I don't see why they would even want this.

Oh, so now gay people can't be down with Jesus? Don't be hatin', yo.

They are basically wanting an organization that thinks they are going to hell for their lifestyle to "marry" them?

No, if they want to get married in a church, I'm sure they'd prefer a real follower of god to marry them, not some hypocritical "God hates fags" fundamentalist who is in reality about as holy and pious as any given atheist.

I dont care what race, creed, lifestyle, etc you are, but leave an event that was designed for specific people alone.

Again, have you ever tried saying that out loud?

To me all they are up to is trying to agrrevate these conservative "Old White Men" and nothing else.

Are you kidding? Those sum'bitches get angry over everything! You don't have ot consciously try to aggravate them.

Incidentally, I know a lot of gay people who would be most unhappy with your bullshit stereotyping.