 |
| |
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:32
|
|
At any rate, the ammendment is doomed:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...co/gay_marriage
quote:
Gay Marriage Ban Divides Senate GOP
By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent
WASHINGTON - Short on votes and beset by internal divisions, Senate Republicans struggled Tuesday to salvage a respectable defeat for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, an issue that President Bush (news - web sites) pushed toward the top of the election-year agenda.
"This issue is not going away," Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said in a virtual concession that the measure would fall short of the 60 votes needed to advance past a Wednesday test vote. "Will it be back? Absolutely, yes," he added.
Democrats, many of whom oppose the measure, took delight in the internal Republican woes, and Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois read aloud from a recent statement on the issue by Lynne Cheney, wife of the vice president. "When it comes to conferring legal status on relationships, that is a matter that should be left to the states," he quoted her as saying.
The emotionally charged proposal, backed by the president and many conservatives, provides that marriage within the United States "shall consist only of a man and a woman."
A second sentence says that neither the federal nor any state constitution "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 critics argue that the effect of that provision would be to ban civil unions, and its inclusion in the amendment has complicated efforts by GOP leaders to gain support from wavering Republicans.
While there was no disagreement that the measure would fall short of the 60 votes needed to advance, Republicans held out hope they could gain a majority. Even that seemed in doubt, although their chances improved when an aide to Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) said he and vice presidential running mate John Edwards (news - web sites) did not intend to return to the Capitol for what amounted to a procedural vote. Both men oppose the amendment.
The Senate moved toward a showdown as House Republicans pursued a different plan — seeking to pass legislation rather than an amendment.
The House Judiciary Committee (news - web sites) scheduled a meeting for Wednesday on a measure to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over a 1996 federal law that defined marriage as the union between a man and a woman.
Bush urged the Republican-controlled Congress last February to approve a constitutional amendment, saying it was needed to stop judges from changing the definition of the "most enduring human institution."
The odds have never favored passage in the current Congress, in part because many conservatives are hesitant to overrule state prerogatives in the area of issues such as marriage.
But Republican strategists hope to force Democrats to choose between voting the wishes of their liberal constituents, some of whom favor gay marriage, or in favor of an amendment that polls show is favored by a heavy majority of the country.
"They want to put senators on the spot. Ads will be running. Trust me," said Durbin, who added that the Republicans were trying to "change the subject" of the election away from the war in Iraq (news - web sites) and the economy.
In a string of speeches during the day, Republicans said their motivation was the defense of marriage, the well-being of children and a desire to prevent unelected judges from amending the constitution from the bench.
"There is a master plan out there from those who want to destroy the institution of marriage to, first of all, begin to take this issue in a few select courts throughout this country at the state level," said Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo. Pointing to rulings in Vermont and Massachusetts, he said that "once they get their favorable rulings from activist judges ... they want to take it to the federal courts and they'll eventually move it to the Supreme Court."
In a strongly worded speech, Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said some criticism runs along these lines: "Marriage is hate. Marriage is a stain. Marriage is an evil thing. That's what we hear. People who stand for traditional marriage are haters, they're bashers, they're mean-spirited, they're intolerant. ... Well, we're not," he added.
Several Republican senators have argued in private meetings in recent days that their leaders are making a political mistake by trying to force the amendment to a vote. One lawmaker said there were fresh expressions of concern at a weekly closed-door meeting during the day.
At the same time, several aides said Santorum and Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon both urged fellow Republicans to support the measure on the test vote, depicting it as an issue of loyalty to the GOP leaders.
Smith has been among Republicans expressing concern about the amendment as drafted, saying he prefers a simpler one-sentence version. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity, citing the confidentiality of the discussions.
Under the Constitution, it takes a two-thirds vote by both houses of Congress to submit an amendment to the states. Approval by three-fourths of the state legislatures is required to complete ratification.
|
I love Frist's shriek of defeat. "We'll be back!" Hmm, they can't get enough votes for even a majority during an election year when the GOP controls both houses and the presidency. Sorry, Billy boy, but this is the best shot your ilk will ever have at it.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:32
|
|
Yup, the repugs went down!
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/14/p...ND-GAYS.html?hp
quote:
Senate Vote Blocks Effort to Ban Gay-Marriage in Constitution
By CARL HULSE
Published: July 14, 2004
ASHINGTON, July 14 — Backers of a constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriages suffered a stinging defeat in the Senate today as opponents easily killed the initiative for the year in a procedural showdown.
Senators voted 50 to 48 against a call to cut off debate, 12 votes short of the 60 required and even below a simple majority of 51. It would have taken 67 votes to approve the amendment itself. The loss effectively ended a drive to move the proposal through the Senate before the November elections. Six Republicans helped block the amendment, illustrating the divisions in the party ranks over the idea of inscribing such a ban into the Constitution.
"The constitutional amendment we are debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans," said Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona. "It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed, and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states do not believe confronts them."
Three Democrats sided with Republicans in trying to move to a vote on the language of the amendment itself. Under Constitutional rules crafted by the Founding Fathers to make it difficult to alter the document, a supermajority of 67 votes is necessary to start the ratification process by the states. Today's vote did not reflect the full level of opposition since some Senate Republicans who were opposed to the amendment sided with their leadership on the preliminary vote.
"This is an unnecessary amendment that wrongly and certainly prematurely deprives states of their traditional ability to define marriage," said Senator Joseph Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, as he joined many of his colleagues in asserting that marriage is an issue of state domain.
Democrats also accused the Senate Republican leadership of forcing the debate on an amendment they knew could not pass to create a wedge issue for the coming elections. President Bush is a strong supporter of the proposal and conservative activist groups had aggressively urged the Senate leadership to bring the matter to the floor.
Backers of the amendment said they were only responding to court decisions they said were reshaping the traditional American view of marriage despite scant involvement on the part of the public.
"Marriage does matter," said Senator Wayne Allard, Republican of Colorado and the author of the amendment. "It matters to our children, it matters in America. Marriage is the foundation of a free society and courts are redefining marriage."
Though they lost the vote, the backers of the amendment did succeed in getting lawmakers on record on the issue and they said they expected it to reverberate throughout the campaign season. Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina, the two members of the Democratic presidential ticket, did not vote. They both oppose the amendment, however, saying that while they oppose same-sex marriage that the issue is a state concern.
The issue may still resurface in the House this year. A House panel was considering today a legislative proposal that its authors said could prevent federal judges from overturning the existing federal law defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, though critics said they doubted the new proposal could survive a court test.
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay has said he might schedule a House vote later this year on a constitutional amendment. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:32
|
|
Well, I was wrong:
Democrats Yes
Byrd, W.Va.; Miller, Ga.; Nelson, Neb.
Apologies to Breaux, he voted no. 
The good Republicans:
Republicans No
Campbell, Colo.; Chafee, R.I.; Collins, Maine; McCain, Ariz.; Snowe, Maine; Sununu, N.H.
I'm pretty disappointed in Specter and Domenici, who both voted Yes. 
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-07-2004 00:56
Poor debating technique 
|