Senate to take up Marriage Amendment

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2004-06-18 06:22pm

U.S. Senate to take up Marriage Amendment...

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate in mid-July plans take up a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, forcing lawmakers to cast a tough political vote just weeks before the Democratic presidential convention in Massachusetts.

President Bush has urged Congress to move on the amendment, but sponsors acknowledge the difficulty of getting the two-thirds majority to approve it.

"We're not certain we'll be successful in this effort," Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said at a news conference to announce that the amendment would be on the Senate floor the week of July 12.

Cornyn and the measure's chief sponsor, Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colorado, denied they were stirring up a divisive political issue two weeks before Democrats gather in Massachusetts, the first state to recognize same-sex marriages.

"This was an issue that was thrust upon us by the Massachusetts Supreme Court," Cornyn said. "We didn't pick the battle, we didn't pick the timing."

Allard said there were at least 11 pending court cases on the issue around the country. "We must not stand still when the courts are being used to challenge and distort civilization's oldest, most venerable social institution,"he said.

Steven Fisher, spokesman for Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights group, said the July vote was "an attempt to inject politics into a debate that affects real Americans' lives." Congress, he said, "should focus on the real priorities of the American people: jobs, the economy and the war in Iraq."

Bush announced his support for the amendment last February, but recently has come under pressure from some of his conservative allies to give the issue a higher profile.

Paul M. Weyrich, national chairman of an amalgam of conservative organizations known as Coalitions for America, recently said that Bush needs to change the subject from Iraq to the gay marriage ban in order to be re-elected in November.

Bush responded last week by reiterating his opposition to gay marriage in remarks to the Southern Baptist Convention, saying that "government, by strengthening and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all."

Democratic presidential contender Sen. John Kerry has criticized the proposed amendment as an effort to drive a political wedge between Americans. He has supported civil unions and said the issue of marriage should be left to the states. Sen. John Edwards, D-North Carolina, a possible running mate, has expressed a similar stance.

The Christian Coalition of America, a strong backer of the amendment, urged people to deluge the Senate with petitions, calls, letter and faxes to ensure an early vote. "Force your senators to take a public position before voters go to the polls this fall," it said in a website message.

The House has made no decision on when it might consider the amendment, said Stuart Roy, spokesman for House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas. "We want to pass it, we don't want to just bring it up," he said.

The Allard amendment states that "marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this 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."

Amendments to the Constitution require approval by two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate and ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures.

So...any thoughts?

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-06-18 06:28pm

This amendment is an afront to the Constitution and a violation of the spirit of the constitution.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-06-18 07:01pm

It won't get through 2/3 of Congress, and it definately won't get through 3/4 of the states.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-06-18 07:04pm

Howedar wrote:It won't get through 2/3 of Congress, and it definately won't get through 3/4 of the states.

Then why are they even bothering to try?

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2004-06-18 07:08pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:Then why are they even bothering to try?

Money and votes.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-06-18 07:54pm

This is just part of a conservative strategy to garner anti-gay-marriage votes for the upcoming election. They know full well that they won't get a 2/3rds majority in Congress, but that's not why they are doing it.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2004-06-18 08:41pm

"Bush responded last week by reiterating his opposition to gay marriage in remarks to the Southern Baptist Convention, saying that "government, by strengthening and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all.""

Right, because government forbidding homosexuals from marrying serves of the interests of all, including those homosexuals. That makes so much sense.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2004-06-18 08:44pm

He was talking to the Southern Baptist. Considering their divorce rates, they need all the 'sancity protection' they can get.

JME2 · Post by **JME2** » 2004-06-18 10:04pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:This is just part of a conservative strategy to garner anti-gay-marriage votes for the upcoming election. They know full well that they won't get a 2/3rds majority in Congress, but that's not why they are doing it.

Well here's the fun part; Gay Republicans that voted for Bush last time won't be returning the favor. Personally, I'd love to see the reaction of Ashcroft's lesbian daughter to all of this.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-06-18 10:14pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Howedar wrote:It won't get through 2/3 of Congress, and it definately won't get through 3/4 of the states.
Then why are they even bothering to try?

Because inciting homophobia is a way to get knuckledraggers to vote and contribute money. Forcing a vote creates a paper trail.

Here's the ad:

[Sinister Music]

ANNOUNCER: While our God-fearing President is trying to save us from terrorists, Hillary Clinton and homosexuals, Senator [insert name of candidate who voted against this ammendment] voted against an ammendment that would protect our [announcer gets all trembly here] CHILDREN from being recruited by militant gays. Not only will this corrupt our nation's youth so Hillary can kill again, but it will encourage terrorists to attack us in our beds. Have you forgotten 9/11? Vote [name of candidate], your children's future DEPENDS on it!

This shit practically writes itself.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-06-18 10:17pm

JME2 wrote:Well here's the fun part; Gay Republicans that voted for Bush last time won't be returning the favor. Personally, I'd love to see the reaction of Ashcroft's lesbian daughter to all of this.

Or Cheney's lesbian daughter for that matter. But that's kind of irrelevant to the strategy. They are trying to butter up their constituants and get the anti-gay-marriage vote. Besides, I think that Gay Republicans will still vote Bush regardless or vote independant. I doubt they'd actually go against Bush.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-06-18 10:36pm

Cheyney's daughter has been mysteriously silent on the issue.

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2004-06-18 11:12pm

The Christian Coalition of America, a strong backer of the amendment, urged people to deluge the Senate with petitions, calls, letter and faxes to ensure an early vote. "Force your senators to take a public position before voters go to the polls this fall," it said in a website message.

It's all about the politics, baby. I'll bet they already have the attack ads ready to go.

I'd send counter-emails, but I already know how the two Georgia senators will vote.

Metrion Cascade · Post by **Metrion Cascade** » 2004-06-20 09:11am

If this shit passes even one house of Congress I hope there's violence.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2004-06-20 10:09am

Metrion Cascade wrote:If this shit passes even one house of Congress I hope there's violence.

That would put the gay and lesbian cause back years if such a thing happened. The backlash would be incredible.

And congrads on post 1701. I hope you boldy post where no man has posted before.

irishmick79 · Post by **irishmick79** » 2004-06-21 11:37am

Bush is definitely playing to his strengths among voters in the South. The republicans are hoping they can mobilize their core-constituents and off-set the anti-Bush movement towards Kerry. It's a very cynical approach and a very revealing one, if you ask me. Bush's modus operandi has been to drum up support by playing to people's fears without promoting much of an actual agenda of his own. This is a very good example of that approach, and it shows a lot about Bush's character.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-06-21 12:06pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Howedar wrote:It won't get through 2/3 of Congress, and it definately won't get through 3/4 of the states.
Then why are they even bothering to try?

Because some of the hard core, religious righters want to suck up to their constituents and force the issue (and force both sides to actually commit) in the public spotlight by taking up the amendment. It's a hot button issue and one the Republicans have strong support for and the Democrats are mostly just trying to avoid actually doing anything about.

My only hope is that the Democrats will do more than try the seperate but equal bullshit that so many of them have used in order to try and duck really supporting gay rights. I don't at all agree with the far right's position on the issue but I'm glad to see them forcing the issue because otherwise little enough is going to be done.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-06-21 01:22pm

Wicked Pilot wrote: And congrads on post 1701. I hope you boldy post where no man has posted before.

She has. It's called SoS.