Updated: 11:51 AM EDT Senate Rejects Ban on Gay Marriage Supporters Vow to Return to Proposed Amendment By LAURIE KELLMAN, AP WASHINGTON (June 7) - The Senate on Wednesday rejected a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, dealing a defeat to President Bush and Republicans who hoped to use the measure to energize conservative voters on Election Day. Supporters had predicted they would gain votes this year over the last time the issue came up, in 2004, but actually lost one vote for the amendment in a procedural test tally. Wednesday's 49-48 vote fell 11 short of the 60 required to send the matter for an up-or-down tally. The 2004 vote was 50-48. 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 opposes amending the Constitution on this issue, the poll found. "Most Americans are not yet convinced that their elected representatives or the judiciary are likely to expand decisively the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a possible presidential candidate in 2008. He told the Senate on Tuesday he does not support the amendment. The tally Wednesday put the ban 18 votes short of the 67 needed for the Senate to approve a constitutional amendment, which requires a two-thirds vote. But the defeat is by no means the amendment's last stand, said its supporters. "I do not believe the sponsors are going to fall back and cry about it," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "I think they are going to keep bringing it up." The House plans a redux next month, said Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. "This is an issue that is of significant importance to many Americans," Boehner told reporters. "We have significant numbers of our members who want a vote on this, so we are going to have a vote." The defeat came despite daily appeals for passage from Bush, whose standing is troubled by sagging poll numbers and a dissatisfied conservative base. The Vatican also added muscle to the argument Tuesday, naming gay marriage as one of the factors threatening the traditional family as never before. Democrats said the debate was a divisive political ploy. "The Republican leadership is asking us to spend time writing bigotry into the Constitution," said Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, which legalized gay marriage in 2003. "A vote for it is a vote against civil unions, against domestic partnership, against all other efforts for states to treat gays and lesbians fairly under the law." In response, Hatch fumed: "Does he really want to suggest that over half of the United States Senate is a crew of bigots?" Forty-five of the 50 states have acted to define traditional marriage in ways that would ban same-sex marriage -- 19 with constitutional amendments and 26 with statutes. The amendment would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages. To become law, it would need two-thirds support in the Senate and House, and then would have to be ratified by at least 38 state legislatures. Seven Republicans, many from New England, voted to kill the amendment. They were Sens. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Susan Collins of Maine, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, John McCain of Arizona, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and John Sununu of New Hampshire. Two Democrats voted for the amendment: Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Robert Byrd of West Virginia. Three senators did not vote: Democrats Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and John Rockefeller of West Virginia, and Republican Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. 6/7/2006 11:17:20
A constitutional amendment defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman. "The Republican leadership is asking us to spend time writing bigotry into the Constitution said Sen. Edward Kennedy... WTF?? Massachusetts, which legalized gay marriage in 2003... IMO Massachusetts legalized immorality to the MAX ! Forty-five of the 50 states have acted to define traditional marriage in ways that would ban same-sex marriage -- (A TRUTH that is failing to open the hopelessly deaf minds.) Example: But an equal majority opposes amending the Constitution on this issue, the poll found. Hey, Do they need to pull their polls out of their asses so they can count right? These numbers don't add up right. - again -these polls are always slanted crap. (fact:]Forty-five of the 50 states...) Two Democrats voted for the amendment: Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Robert Byrd of West Virginia. Hey you compromised ET posters- You Betta be careful. Ya just don't go crosxxing the KLAN now! Funny - now- all of a sudden in just the past two decades this queer issue is heating up the electrons and much dragon breath. (well + - 185 years AMERICAN society has been accepting the status quo with little debate.) IMO - and on the record -What "they do" is queer - not gay. I don't dare compromise that judgment call to 'feel' good about the world and all that nice nice stuff. :eek: This goal for marriage does nothing to dilute the disgust - again IMO. If what they do isn't queer - please then what would be - nowadays for sure? ANYTHING IYO?? Linking up with farm animals? Fruits and veggies? Your seester? Communal marriages of 25 'mutual' polygamous spouses like chimps? Specialized farm machinery?âMales with enlarged breasts? Everything is okay as long as no one gets hurt? Love - is the common denominator.
I don't think social conservatives will be fooled by this farce. Their message to the Republican Party has become increasingly strident, namely we put you in office and we are tired of being ignored. Bush provided lip service, nothing else, and the second most prominent Republican, McCain, actually voted against it. He clearly puts his media constituency above Republican voters. Arlen Specter, who owes his reelction to Bush and his Judiciary Committee Chairmanship to Frist, stabbed both in the back. Ideally, this Amendment wouldn't be necessary, but the Constitution has something called the Full Faith and Credit Clause that requires states to recognize the official acts of other states. So if a couple of gays get married in massachusetts, arguably alabama has to treat them as married if they move there. The Full Faith and Credit Clause was clearly not intended to let the activist courts of a couple of states control social policy for the entire nation, so a constitutional amendment may be the only way out. Now it will probably fall to the Supreme Court to deal with the issue.
if that were the problem, then why doesn't the bush proposed amendment simply limit the application of the full faith clause with respect to state laws on marriage? don't know if that would work, but it would be a less restrictive proposal, and support the idea of states passing laws that, ostensibly, conform to the will of their residents (consistent with a "republican" system, lowercase r), without threatening the redstate zealots.
The principle reason that supporters of a ban on gay marriage are seeking a constitutional amendment rather than a statute has nothing to do with so-called "activist judges". It is because they recognize that such restrictions would ultimately be found unconstitutional, under the Constitution as presently written. The legal problems are obvious: 1) "Marriage", in the eyes of the state, is a strictly legal bond. By tradition, couples wishing to be recognized by the state as "married" must obtain a marriage license, but need not have a church wedding or be validated by any religious authority. Therefore, by tradition, marriage has come to mean "a civil union that may or may not include elements of religious practice or belief." 2) Making the focus of the proposed amendment "the definition of what a marriage is"...especially, what GOD intended it to be...clearly raises issues regarding the separation of church and state. The state should not be in the business of defining religious sacraments. saxon
I guess that makes me most afraid of you. By the way in my orginal post I denied being a homophobe and I tell you right now only a homo activist would have deleted such a post. I find zzz's attack of my character offensive and I deserve a right to defend my honor.
So you calling me a homo? You have honor to defend? Oh man....you are truly a delusional right wing moron....