Senate rejects move to ban same-sex marriage

MrSelf · Post by **MrSelf** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 2:40 pm

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Efforts to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage foundered Wednesday afternoon when the proposal failed to garner enough votes in the Senate to stay alive.

After final arguments by the leaders of each party, Republicans mustered 48 votes, 12 short of the 60 they needed to overcome a procedural hurdle and move the proposed amendment to the floor.

"In 217 years, we've only amended that sacred document 17 times," said Sen. Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, before the vote. "There have been 11,000 separate attempts."

Daschle said no urgent need exists to amend the Constitution now.

But Sen. Bill Frist disagreed. "It has become clear to legal scholars ... that same-sex marriage will be exported to all 50 states," said the majority leader, from Tennessee.

"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."

Republicans originally had expected they would win a majority, if not the 67 votes required for the 100-member body to pass a constitutional amendment.

In doing so, they were seeking to force the Democrats' presumed presidential ticket -- Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina -- to go on the record in opposition to the amendment.

But in the last two days, a number of Republicans indicated they wouldn't vote for the measure, leaving GOP leaders red-faced over their failure to muster support.

Sen. John McCain of Arizona broke forcefully with President Bush and the Senate GOP leadership Tuesday evening over the issue, taking to the Senate floor to call such a constitutional amendment unnecessary -- and un-Republican.

"The constitutional amendment we're debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans," McCain said. "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."

McCain also said the amendment "will not be adopted by Congress this year, nor next year, nor any time soon until a substantial majority of Americans are persuaded that such a consequential action is as vitally important and necessary as the proponents feel it is today."

"The founders wisely made certain that the Constitution is difficult to amend and, as a practical political matter, can't be done without overwhelming public approval. And thank God for that," he said.

McCain sided with opponents of the amendment on the procedural vote.

Bush, who defeated McCain for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, has championed the amendment, saying it is necessary to defend the institution of marriage from "activist judges."

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

But McCain argued that there are "far less draconian" remedies, including the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act -- which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as a union between a man and woman and allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other states -- and state constitutional amendments limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.

He said if the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down DOMA or "state remedies to judicial activism fail," then amending the federal Constitution might be "appropriate." But he said the Massachusetts decision to legalize same-sex marriages does "not represent a death knell to marriage."

"What evidence do we have that states are incapable of further exercising an authority they have exercised successfully for over 200 years?" McCain said. "We will have to wait a little longer to see if Armageddon has arrived."

Kerry and Edwards weren't on hand for Wednesday's procedural vote. Kerry was in Boston, and his running mate was campaigning in Iowa.

The amendment, as originally proposed by Republican Sen. Wayne Allard of Colorado, would have added 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.

Democrats blocked a last-ditch effort by Republicans to bring up a second version of the amendment that might have garnered more support.

Still, Republicans have vowed that they will make same-sex marriage a political issue.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:516, old post ID:4487

Chris Vogel · Post by **Chris Vogel** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 2:44 pm

Good.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:516, old post ID:4488

MrSelf · Post by **MrSelf** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 2:51 pm

so far.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:516, old post ID:4489

fragged one · Post by **fragged one** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 2:51 pm

there's no way it could pass, anyway.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:516, old post ID:4490

MrSelf · Post by **MrSelf** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 2:53 pm

there's always a chance something crazy could happen, like all 50 states ratifying it while locking all the sane people in the local jails with mutant rats....

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:516, old post ID:4491

Red Squirrel · Post by **Red Squirrel** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 3:07 pm

Scarry... but then again, legal or not people do it anyway. This is pretty much the same thing as the legalizing pot issue.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:516, old post ID:4496

MrSelf · Post by **MrSelf** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 3:10 pm

Red Squirrel wrote: Scarry... but then again, legal or not people do it anyway. This is pretty much the same thing as the legalizing pot issue.

You are right, but for the wrong reasons. This is an issue of what our federal government has the right to decide vs what the states have the right to decide.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:516, old post ID:4499

Red Squirrel · Post by **Red Squirrel** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 4:13 pm

Yeah it's true though it should be a state decision and not a decision that affects the whole country.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:516, old post ID:4507

Chris Vogel · Post by **Chris Vogel** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 5:50 pm

Do states recognise other states’ same-sex marriages?

Bah… For those who think marriage should be a union between only a man and a woman, don’t marry someone of the same sex.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:516, old post ID:4521

MrSelf · Post by **MrSelf** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 6:04 pm

That's the key issue, isn't it. The Defensive Marriage Act said states do not, but I think the problem is in the definition of recognize. Activist want it to mean that if someone in Mass. gets a same-sex marriage, then moves to Georgia, it is legal there. But you can recognize this without having to change your rules and regulations, it's very simple, just say "We recognize that you are married according to the state of Mass., and bound by their laws on such."

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:516, old post ID:4522

sintekk · Post by **sintekk** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 6:33 pm

Sure would've been interesting if McCain was picked to be Kerry's running partner. A Democrat that can't make up his mind and a somewhat sensible Republican would've made an interesting team.

I'm glad this thing failed, MoveOn.org (some sort of crazy website that gives me free stickers, lol) gave me a petition to sign about this.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:516, old post ID:4532

Red Squirrel · Post by **Red Squirrel** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 6:51 pm

How do gay people marry anyway? Since I can't see how any church, even non christian, would allow it to take place. Since gay marriage is against most religions, not only christianity.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:516, old post ID:4537

sintekk · Post by **sintekk** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 6:53 pm

It's simple: They fill out a freakin' form, some dork in a suit stamps it, they're legally married

I imagine that's how it goes down, anyway

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:516, old post ID:4538

Red Squirrel · Post by **Red Squirrel** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 6:56 pm

Man, talk about a borring marriage. LOL Well I would not really consider it a marriage even though they are legally married since that's like, I don't know. I guess it's cheaper though.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:516, old post ID:4541

MrSelf · Post by **MrSelf** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 7:50 pm

Lot's of marriages happen outside of churches. On beaches, on resorts, lakes, gardens, anywhere really.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:516, old post ID:4548

sintekk · Post by **sintekk** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 8:18 pm

Casinos, too; I've seen people getting married in Las Vegas on TV

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:516, old post ID:4555

Red Squirrel · Post by **Red Squirrel** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 8:40 pm

hahaha that's hilarious!

"Ok, if you both get the same number, you will become husband and wife, common roll that dice!"

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:516, old post ID:4562