"Victory in Federal Marriage Amendment in Senate"

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-07-15 10:35am

So why doesn't the Democratic party just kick Zell Miller out already? Jesus Christ.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-07-15 11:03am

You know it is persoanlly embarassing for me that our legislature is even seriously contemplating any of this. This is a disgusting thinly veiled assault against one of the last minorities that is OK to attack with very little reprecussions. And of course we can thank the god fearing christian right for that.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-07-15 11:13am

Bush 'disappointed' by gay marriage ban's defeat
Foes of Senate amendment decry 'political tool'
Thursday, July 15, 2004 Posted: 5:24 AM EDT (0924 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush says he is "disappointed" that a move to effectively ban same-sex marriage was "temporarily blocked" in the Senate, and he is urging the House to take up the matter.

"Activist judges and local officials in some parts of the country are not letting up in their efforts to redefine marriage for the rest of America, and neither should defenders of traditional marriage flag in their efforts," Bush said in a statement.

"It is important for our country to continue the debate on this important issue, and I urge the House of Representatives to pass this amendment."

Efforts to pass a constitutional amendment to effectively ban gay marriage failed in the Senate on Wednesday afternoon.

Opponents denounced the failed effort as a "political tool" during an election year.

"Today, we saw President Bush and the Republican leadership attempt to divide America and it backfired, instead dividing their own party," said Cheryl Jacques, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights organization. "We saw the politics of distraction fail and fail handily."

Supporters of the amendment vowed to keep fighting for the measure.

"This is a long process," said Republican Sen. Wayne Allard of Colorado, sponsor of the amendment. "Nobody on our side, I think, ever felt for a minute that this was going to be a one-shot deal and it was going to be over with at that particular point in time."

The proposed amendment, championed by Bush, was killed for this session after a procedural vote to move the measure to the Senate floor for final consideration failed 48-50 -- 12 votes shy of the 60 required by Senate rules.

Six Republicans -- including Sen. John McCain of Arizona -- joined 43 Democrats and one independent to defeat the measure. Three Democrats and 45 Republicans voted for it.

Republicans had expected to muster the votes needed to at least advance the measure, if not the 67 required to pass it. They also expected to force the presumptive Democratic presidential ticket -- Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina -- to vote against it.

A constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress to pass. Then the proposal would need the approval of three-fourths of the state legislatures to be ratified.

Both Kerry and Edwards were on record opposing the measure but decided not to return for the procedural vote since their votes weren't needed to defeat it. They were the only senators not voting.

Kerry, who was in Boston, issued a statement saying the Senate floor "should only be used for the common good, not issues designed to divide us for political purposes."

Edwards, at a campaign rally in Iowa, said "the president and the vice president tried to use our Constitution and the amendment of that Constitution as a political tool, and the United States Senate, they said, 'No. We will not accept it.' "

A Bush campaign aide responded, "It takes a special kind of senator to attack others over a vote that they don't show up for."

Bush did not directly address the amendment's defeat during a bus tour of Wisconsin, but he reiterated his opposition to same-sex marriage during a rally in Ashwaubenon, a Green Bay suburb.

"We stand for institutions like marriage and family which are the foundations of our society," he said, drawing thunderous applause from the partisan crowd. "We stand for judges who strictly and faithfully interpret the law, instead of legislating from the bench."

Social conservatives have been pushing hard for the measure since May, when the highest court in Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriages in the Bay State.

Polls show a solid majority of Americans are against legalizing same-sex marriages, although the gap narrows when it comes to amending the Constitution.

Varying views
Bush's stance was echoed by Republican Sen. Bill Frist of Tennessee during debate. "Will activist judges not elected by the American people destroy the institution of marriage, or will the people protect marriage as the best way to raise children? My vote is with the people," said the majority leader.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, talks to Human Rights Campaign President Cheryl Jacques on Capitol Hill. Bishop Jane Dixon is at left.
Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah said the amendment would simply preserve a fundamental institution "that a few unelected judges are trying to radically change." It's not a question of discrimination against gays, he said.

The amendment, as proposed by Allard, would add these two sentences to the Constitution:

"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."

Some Republicans objected to the second sentence, saying it was so ambiguous that it also could prevent states from allowing gays and lesbians to join in civil unions.

Other senators expressed concern that the measure would usurp the states' traditional dominion over family law, and some questioned whether it was necessary.

Republican Sen. John Sununu of New Hampshire, who voted against moving the measure forward, said it was too early to make the assumption that judges might strike down laws such as the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act and 38 similar state statutes that define marriage as a union only between a man and a woman.

"Naturally, there exist concerns about what activist courts might do to undermine these rights and the Defense of Marriage Act," Sununu said in a statement. "But it is premature to amend the Constitution based upon a hypothetical scenario."

McCain went even further, calling the amendment "antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans." (Full story)

Besides Sununu and McCain, the other Republicans who broke with the GOP leadership on the issue were Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado.

The three Democrats voting to advance the measure were Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Zell Miller of Georgia and Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

Afterward, proponents tried to put the best face on the defeat, vowing to press forward until they win.

"I think we are going to have a long and extended discussion in the country about what is marriage. ... We won on substance. We lost on procedure," said Republican Sam Brownback of Kansas, noting that Democrats were "definitely" not listening to their constituents.

CNN's Craig Broffman and Ed Henry contributed to this report.

More info on this defeats and a president openly disappointed "Aw shucks, we didn't get those faggots this time but we'll get 'em soon enough, just you watch."

Ugh. The man makes me sick and I never felt this way about a president before in my life.

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2004-07-15 12:21pm

Wannabe Theocrat wrote:"Activist judges and local officials in some parts of the country are not letting up in their efforts to redefine marriage for the rest of America, and neither should defenders of traditional marriage flag in their efforts,"

Anyone else find this funny? First it was just the "activist judges" faults. If not for them, we'd have them gays held down faster than Zell Miller can give Vidalia onions to his fellow Senators (I am not making that up; he gave away something like 2000 pounds of onions the other day). But suddenly, all these good local Americans are voting against suppressing civil rights. So now local officials are being thrown in.

I can't wait until an anti-gay marriage law or state amendment is voted down, so he can claim that activist judges, local officials, and American voters are trying to "redefine marriage for the rest of America".

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2004-07-15 12:27pm

Bush's stance was echoed by Republican Sen. Bill Frist of Tennessee during debate. "Will activist judges not elected by the American people destroy the institution of marriage, or will the people protect marriage as the best way to raise children? My vote is with the people," said the majority leader.

To those of us who understand how our political system works, this is patently stupid. To those of us who don't understand, this is somewhat of an effective argument, until you realize that the judges are voted in by the legislature. Dolts.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-07-15 12:49pm

Why would judges be elected anyway? I know some State judges are (Pennsylvania's for one) but how the fuck does that make sense? How can they pass down impartial judgement if they have to fucking campaign?

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-07-15 12:52pm

I am now predicting that the marriage amendment is going to be like a flag burning amendment. It is going to pop up every year and be voted down as a matter of legistlative proceedure.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-07-15 12:58pm

HemlockGrey wrote:Why would judges be elected anyway? I know some State judges are (Pennsylvania's for one) but how the fuck does that make sense? How can they pass down impartial judgement if they have to fucking campaign?

I think he's referring to the legislative responsibility to appoint new judges to the bench, exercising representative democracy by representing us in those appointments and proceedings.

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2004-07-15 01:22pm

HemlockGrey wrote:Why would judges be elected anyway? I know some State judges are (Pennsylvania's for one) but how the fuck does that make sense? How can they pass down impartial judgement if they have to fucking campaign?

That's the point. Unfortunately, the average American only sees "Unelected?!? That's like a monarchy/dictatorship! BAD BAD EVIL EVIL!!!!!11!111!!!onehundredeleven!!1!"

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2004-07-15 01:27pm

Roll Call wrote:Byrd (D-WV), Yea

I wonder if the Honorable Senator Robert C. Byrd's 'white niggers' he is so fond of are in fact homosexuals?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-07-15 01:28pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Roll Call wrote:Byrd (D-WV), Yea
I wonder if the Honorable Senator Robert C. Byrd's 'white niggers' he is so fond of are in fact homosexuals?

I wouldn't be all that surprised...

Rockafeller(Whose name I will never be able to spell) voted Nay, though. I was shocked.

Shaidar Haran · Post by **Shaidar Haran** » 2004-07-15 03:01pm

I'm very glad to see that both my state's Senators voted against it and good for them. I didn't really doubt they would; but then again Michigan has some obnoxious family values democrats as well. My only concern about the outcome is really that the vote was so close and that both democratic candidates declined to vote on this. I'm not impressed by that at all by that.

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:
Wicked Pilot wrote:
Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:Why didn't Kerry or Edwards vote on something as important as amending the US Constitution?
Their votes would have been ammo for Bush.
Smart move, Kerry and Edwards.

It's a smart move politically but it might well be bad news for the gay rights community.

Kerry has made it abundantly clear over the course of his campaign that he's at best a reluctant supporter of gay rights (Catholic upbringing and all). His support for even the seperate but equal civil unions is half hearted; he's not willing to actually support gay marriages. And from the beginning of the race the inside word on the Kerry campaign was that he really wished to avoid the issue entirely and do nothing. So it's a good question whether or not he will actually do anything.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2004-07-15 03:48pm

RogueIce wrote:
RogueIce wrote:
Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:Why didn't Kerry or Edwards vote on something as important as amending the US Constitution?
Out on the campaign trail? Maybe some weird funky thing not letting Presidential candidates vote? *shrug*

Or what WP said, ammo.
Also, Edwards hasn't voted in about a week, and Kerry hasn't voted for a long ass time. Scroll down the lists and look.

Can a Mod combine these two and delete this?

To Clarify: this was not the vote to make the Amendment. This vote was to take the proposal out of the 'suggetion box' and onto the floor for serious debate.

Which is why Sen Robert C Byrd voted Yay while the other WV Senator voted Nay. Byrd wanted the chance to use his infamous debate skills to show just how stupid the idea was to suggest the Amendment.
Or at least that's what he claimed in today's newspapers

Oni Koneko Damien · Post by **Oni Koneko Damien** » 2004-07-15 05:27pm

Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Nay

Woohoo, the liberals of the north flex their political muscle! Take that you fundy bastards!

-Damien

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2004-07-15 08:37pm

I think it's a very sad day indeed when we must celebrate an unbroken filibuster due to the fear that the amendment might otherwise be passed by the legislature.

Tzeentch · Post by **Tzeentch** » 2004-07-15 10:41pm

Oni Koneko Damien wrote:
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Woohoo, the liberals of the north flex their political muscle! Take that you fundy bastards!

-Damien

Damn straight. Senator poor and senator rich together on this one.

Let no one forget that WI is a progressive heartland.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-07-16 11:09am

Uraniun235 wrote:I think it's a very sad day indeed when we must celebrate an unbroken filibuster due to the fear that the amendment might otherwise be passed by the legislature.

The thing never had a chance of actually getting passed Congress. Hell, had it come up for debate it might not have gotten even the vote it did. Either way it never would have cleared the Senate with the 67 votes needed.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-07-16 11:14am

Shaidar Haran wrote:It's a smart move politically but it might well be bad news for the gay rights community.

Kerry has made it abundantly clear over the course of his campaign that he's at best a reluctant supporter of gay rights (Catholic upbringing and all). His support for even the seperate but equal civil unions is half hearted; he's not willing to actually support gay marriages. And from the beginning of the race the inside word on the Kerry campaign was that he really wished to avoid the issue entirely and do nothing. So it's a good question whether or not he will actually do anything.

Not surprising. Kerry will probably just leave it up to the states, which is how it's been going.

JME2 · Post by **JME2** » 2004-07-16 11:20am

Stravo wrote:You know it is persoanlly embarassing for me that our legislature is even seriously contemplating any of this. This is a disgusting thinly veiled assault against one of the last minorities that is OK to attack with very little reprecussions. And of course we can thank the god fearing christian right for that.

I agree with you Stravo, especially since analyst had said that if the ban had passed, it would essentially be declaring 'open season' on gays.

RevWaldo · Post by **RevWaldo** » 2004-07-16 12:03pm

And now let us check in with the AFA's reaction

SUBJECT: We are encouraged by the Senate vote - July 15, 2004

On a 50-48 vote, the U.S. Senate has failed to overcome a Democratic filibuster and force a vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment.

The "cloture vote," as it is called, required 60 votes to bring debate to a close. Senators who support traditional marriage voted FOR cloture, while senators who support homosexual "marriage" voted AGAINST cloture. See how your Senators voted and let them hear for you.

I urge you, do not be discouraged! This is only the beginning of a long fight for the very foundation of Western Civilization. One of the primary purposes of this vote is to make public the position of each Senator. There is a general feeling that some Senators will have to be voted out of office before the FMA can pass. Those senators up for re-election who showed support for same-sex marriage should be held accountable in November's election.

Click Here to see how your senators voted and please contact them today!

I am committed for the long haul. I hope that you are also. Too much is riding on the outcome.

Please forward this email and help us to grow the involvement.

Sincerely,

Don

Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association

P.S. Please forward this email to at least one friend.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2004-07-16 01:51pm

Grassley voted for it. What a douchebag.

I didn't know whether he would or not, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Anyway, Harkin voted against it. Never any doubts there, though.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-07-16 02:54pm

Now shrubby will be bitching about those "activist legistlators"

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-07-16 03:51pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:Now shrubby will be bitching about those "activist legistlators"

Because those damn activist legistlatorists vote for laws to suit their own personal agendas! They must be stopped!

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-07-17 05:34am

Anyone catch the Daily Show on the subject?

Symmetry · Post by **Symmetry** » 2004-07-17 09:18am

Thank you Snowe, I'm glad I voted for you.