Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Senate Rejects Gay Marriage Ban

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Senate Rejects Gay Marriage Ban


    Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, center, speaks Tuesday in Washington, D.C., in support of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

    The Senate rejected a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage Wednesday, delivering a stinging defeat to President Bush and other Republicans who hope the issue will rally GOP voters for the November elections.

    The senators' vote was 49-48 to limit debate and bring the amendment to a yes-or-no decision. That was 11 short of the 60 needed, killing the measure in the Senate for this year.

    Bush suggested the ban was proper and its time would still come. He said, "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."

    Democrats suggested it was all about conservative politics.

    "Why is it when Republicans are all for reducing the federal government's impact on people's lives until it comes to these stinging litmus test issues, whether gay marriage or end of life they suddenly want the federal government to intervene?" asked Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. "It makes no sense other than throwing red meat to a certain constituency."


    Sen Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., speaks against the amendment during another event Tuesday on Capitol Hill. He called the proposed ban "bigotry."

    The 49 votes to keep the amendment alive were one more than the measure received the last time the Senate voted, in 2004. Proponents had predicted the amendment would get at least a 51-vote majority in the 100-member Senate with the gain four Republican seats since then.

    It takes two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress to send a proposed amendment to the states for ratification. The House will take up the issue next month.


    A supporter of traditional marriage sports a pin during a speech Monday by President Bush when he renewed his call for the ban.

    Despite the defeat, amendment backers insisted progress had been made because the debate over three days raised the issue's profile and will force candidates to answer for their votes on the campaign trail.

    "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," said Sen. David Vitter, R-La.

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

    Most bitter to the amendments' authors was the loss of support in their own GOP caucus. Two Republicans changed their votes from yes in 2004 to no this time: Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska did not vote Wednesday because he was traveling with Bush.

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


    Demonstrators opposing the proposed amendment gather in front of the U.S. Capitol on Monday.

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

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

    A majority of Americans define marriage as a union of a man and a woman, as the proposed amendment does, according to a poll out this week by ABC News. But an equal majority oppose amending the Constitution over the issue, the poll found.

    The tally Wednesday put the ban 18 votes short of the 67 needed for the Senate to approve a constitutional amendment.

    Supporters of the amendment acknowledged disappointment in the vote and, to some extent, Bush's advocacy. "He could have done more, but he doesn't have a vote in this one," Brownback said of the president.

    Forty-five of the 50 states have acted to define traditional marriage in ways that would ban same-sex marriage - 19 with state constitutional amendments and 26 with statutes.

    The proposed federal amendment would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages. After approval by Congress, it would have to be ratified by at least 38 state legislatures.

    Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska was the only Senate Democrat who supported the amendment. Democrat Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted "yes" on Wednesday's motion to move forward with an up-or-down vote on the amendment but said he opposed the measure itself.

    Three senators did not vote: Democrats Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and John Rockefeller of West Virginia as well as Republican Hagel of Nebraska.

    Source: AP

  • #2
    Stock in KY jelly just went through the roof.

    Comment


    • #3
      Gay Marriage Opponents Have No Logical Reasons

      Though I support abortion, I can understand the view of the mis-use of it. Though I oppose the NSA, there can be some understanding that it's for national security issues. But there's no reason to hate or oppose gay marriage. No reason at all.

      Here's some questions to the gay marriage opponents on here:

      What have they done to you directly? Have they broken into your homes? Kidnap your children? Steal your possessions? Rob you? Have they done anything that will directly effect the outcome of your lives? All they want to do is get married. Just get married. They are human beings with feelings and emotions. They are made of the same flesh and bone as any other human being on this planet. No difference.

      All Bush is doing here is pandering to the conservative right in this congressional election year. He knows his ratings are in a dive, and he knows if he tickles the countries moral values, the highly religious will wag their tail and follow their master. This is just another ploy to take us away from the war, Katrina, NSA, Valerie Plane, and every other issue that has surrounded this administration.

      I have yet to hear a single logical reason to oppose gay marriage. If you're divorced, and you oppose it, you have no room to speak. You speak of moral values and installing the values of a family, yet you can't make your marriage work, so you end up getting a divorce, putting an emotional strain on your children, and then force them to adjust to your choice of a step-parent. If homosexuals wish to be married, who's not to say they won't be able to raise a child? If Bush wants to push for a man and a woman for a family, then what about single parents? Widows and widowers? Someone who is not the parent raising the child? It's no better than how Dan Quayle used the same junk on the TV show Murphy Brown.

      If you're just highly religious, I don't want to hear it. There's more than one religion in this country, so no one has the same beliefs. Just as you say your god commands that no gays can get married, my god can equally say they should. Believe it or not, there are some people who do not let religion run their lives, and actually found something else, like their true love, their soulmate, their other. If homosexuals marry, you're not going to go to hell. Worry about your own life, that's what may determine your afterlife. By trying to force others to believe what you believe in, that's nothing to be very proud of if you're hopes are to go to heaven.

      Listen, the Bible says not to masturbate, but people do it anyway. Does that mean we should outlaw it in the country? The Bible says not to covet our neighbor's goods, but we do it anyway, and it happens to keep our economy going. If we install new laws and amendments to appase those who are staunch Bible believers, then we will be no better than the Muslim fundamentalist countries in the Middle East. We would be just as hypocritical and corrupt as some of the establishments of government there.

      I love this country, but sometimes I'm just embarrassed at why can't some people take off the blinders and look at all the points of the issue rather than just the ones they prefer.

      Comment


      • #4
        It disgusts me how people feel the need to control other people's lives and who they love and get to be with just becasue they think it is "wrong", or "unnatural". It DOES NOT affect you if two homosexuals/Lesbians love each other and want to be married.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Kellie-Girl
          It disgusts me how people feel the need to control other people's lives and who they love and get to be with just becasue they think it is "wrong", or "unnatural". It DOES NOT affect you if two homosexuals/Lesbians love each other and want to be married.
          It doesnt affect me but I totally wouldnt want to see two dudes comin out of a church a place where the union of women and man is suppose to be a definitive position. It's not so much that I care that there in love its more that marriage is suppose to be a holy suggestion saying that with this person you've found god in this person and is someone you want to have faith in god with and by having to dudes/chicks marry is kinda pissin all over the bible.

          Comment


          • #6
            What is so wrong with being gay? Republicans need to handle the real issues.

            Comment


            • #7
              Sexuality is a issue that no one likes to talk about... Touchy issue.

              Comment


              • #8
                As long as I don't have to see gays getting freaky I'm cool. Give the stool pushers their rights.

                Comment


                • #9
                  thank for you

                  Comment

                  Unconfigured Ad Widget

                  Collapse
                  Working...
                  X