Senate Approves Gay Marriage Ban Amendment (1 Viewer)

[hipsterdufus]

So the GOP passed an amendment today in the Senate proposing a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Obviously they didn't want anyone to see it. As far as I know, no major network covered it, but I happen to have C-Span 3.

My main man Russ Feingold walked out of the secret session. The amendment has no chance of passing a vote scheduled for June.

I think this wedge issue is pretty well played out, but I guess Rove thinks there's some more mileage left with it.

Gay Marriage Amendment Causes Shouting Match

May 18, 2006 8:52 p.m. EST


Richard Rittierodt - All Headline News Contributor

Washington DC (AHN) - After a shouting match that ended when one Democrat left the meeting, a Senate committee approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages.

After Senator Russ Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat, declared his opposition to the amendment, his affinity for the Constitution and his intention to leave the meeting, Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter shouted, "I don't need to be lectured by you. You are no more a protector of the Constitution than am I."

Even though it has little chance of passing, the panel voted along party lines to send the constitutional amendment to the full Senate.

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7003630524

 

[Little-Acorn]

I'll just do the usual debunking of a hysterical report, then move on.

The Senate didn't pass the amendment. Only a committee did. For the full Senate to pass it as a Constitutional amendment, it would need a 2/3 supermajority: 67 votes. Never gonna happen. The Dems were just pissed because now they will have to go on record with their votes against.

Specter did get one thing right, when he snapped to Feingold, "You are no more a protector of the Constitution than am I." Good to know he realizes which boat he is in.

Homosexuals already have fully equal rights in marriage, as heterosexuals do. Heterosexuals can marry a member of the opposite sex, and so can homosexuals. Heteros are forbidden to "marry" a member of the same sex, and so are homosexuals. Heteros are forbidden to marry certain other groups they might want to (plural marriage, underage, close relatives etc.), and so are homosexuals. Etc. etc.

There you go - perfect equality of rights.

Oh, but homosexuals have different desires in marriage, from heteros? What has that got to do with their rights?

In fact, homosexuals and theri advocates do not want "equal rights" - they already have them. What they want, is to change the fundamental definition and purpose of marriage. It is for that reason that they are resoundingly defeated each and every time they let their issue go to a popular vote, and always will.

We now return you to your regular programming.

 

[FallingPianos]

Homosexuals already have fully equal rights in marriage, as heterosexuals do. Heterosexuals can marry a member of the opposite sex, and so can homosexuals. Heteros are forbidden to "marry" a member of the same sex, and so are homosexuals.

the exact same argument was made for banning interracial marriage, but it was found to be unconstitutional.

 

[Little-Acorn]

the exact same argument was made for banning interracial marriage, but it was found to be unconstitutional.

It is by no means the same argument, of course. A marriage is a union between and man and a woman, and clearly makes no distinction for interracial unions. Because a few bigots thought otherwise, didn't make it so. The definition of marriage does not have to be changed to include interracial marriages.

However, a marriage is NOT a union between two men, or two women. A fundamental change in the definition of marriage would be needed to make it so. The American people are not interested in making that change, as they have shown time and again in ballot after ballot.

Homosexual advocates try to call this a "gay rights" issue, which I have demonstrated it is not. They do this because they know that if they admitted what they really want - a fundamental change in the definition of marriage - they would have no hope of getting most people to go along with their desires. Only if they lie about what they want, do they have any chance of success.

 

[Befuddled_Stoner]

One thing I gotta admire is the dastardly cunning of the politicians who go through the gestures of banning gay marriage for political gain. That being noted, it's amazing how so many people can be so insecure in their sexuality, that they project their latent homosexual tendencies onto the general population and believe they would choose to be gay, if only there were better fringe benefits. How is it possible to regard such tripe seriously enough to defile our constitution? Do these people actually think...err, maybe that's giving them too much credit...do these people actually feel that the government has the right to defend the saintliness/holiness/sanctity of anything, let alone a ritual you can have performed by a drunken elvis impersonator in under 20 minutes? I'm honestly baffled that these people can fail to realize that allowing homosexual pair-bonds to register for legal benefits will have exactly zero ramifications on their lives except to reduce the exclusivity of the bitter contract they hold together with their stagnant Empty Love.

I blame the schools, for not putting enough curricular emphasis on critical thought.

 

[FallingPianos]

a marriage is NOT a union between two men, or two women. A fundamental change in the definition of marriage would be needed to make it so. The American people are not interested in making that change, as they have shown time and again in ballot after ballot.

however, the type of reasoning used to justify banning gay marriage has been ruled as unconstitutional in lovings vs virginia. it makes absolutly no difference what the american people want until the constitution is actually amended. thats what its there for.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

It is by no means the same argument, of course. A marriage is a union between and man and a woman, and clearly makes no distinction for interracial unions.

Only after having been successfully redefined to include them.

This argument is pure sophistry.

 

[Little-Acorn]

however, the type of reasoning used to justify banning gay marriage has been ruled as unconstitutional in lovings vs virginia. it makes absolutly no difference what the american people want until the constitution is actually amended. thats what its there for.

What does the Constitution have to do with it? IIRC, it doesn't even mention marriage (please correct me if I'm wrong), and certainly never mentions any qualifications for it. And marriage has certainly existed for millennia before the Constitution was written. You seem to be throwing up a weird strawman argument. Same for the guy who announced that marriage had to be "redefined" to include interracial marriages, though no evidence exists to support his claim outside a few bizarre laws, now defunct, made by isolated bigots in the past. Can't you address the issue instead?

As I pointed out, marriage has always been a union between man and woman. To include same-sex couples WOULD require a fundamental change in its definition, unlike the case for interracial marriages.

Homosexual advocates don't want it publicly known that they wish to change the definition, of course, so they try to throw up similar arguments to yours, pretending the issue is somehow over "equal rights". Even though gays have always had equal rights in marriage, as I have pointed out twice, and the demagogues keep desperately trying to ignore. It blows their whole argument, so they must spin lie after lie to pretend they still have some sort of valid point.

My sympathies. It must be very difficult for the homosexual advocates to base their entire agenda on lies. It does help to explain the blind hatred and fury, coupled with the carefully-crafted ignorance and misdirection they spout, when people routinely debunk them.

 

[Donkey1499]

So the GOP passed an amendment today in the Senate proposing a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Obviously they didn't want anyone to see it. As far as I know, no major network covered it, but I happen to have C-Span 3.

My main man Russ Feingold walked out of the secret session. The amendment has no chance of passing a vote scheduled for June.

I think this wedge issue is pretty well played out, but I guess Rove thinks there's some more mileage left with it.



http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7003630524

I heard this on Fox. (Special Report W/ Brit Hume)
But they mainly focused on when Arlen Specter said "...Good Riddance..." when Russ Feingold threatened to walk out. Feingold was blubbering on about how he understands and supports the Constitution (while hinting that some others don't) and Specter got pissed off.

But the bill will never pass, so y'all hippies don't have to shed one tear of frustration.

 

[Navy Pride]

the exact same argument was made for banning interracial marriage, but it was found to be unconstitutional.

That is and idiotic comparison........Blacks velong to a race.......Being gay is a lifestyle.........I know a lot of African Americans who are offended by your ridiculous comparison....

 

[Navy Pride]

So the GOP passed an amendment today in the Senate proposing a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Obviously they didn't want anyone to see it. As far as I know, no major network covered it, but I happen to have C-Span 3.

My main man Russ Feingold walked out of the secret session. The amendment has no chance of passing a vote scheduled for June.

I think this wedge issue is pretty well played out, but I guess Rove thinks there's some more mileage left with it.



http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7003630524

It was on FOX news...........You really don't expect the liberal media to report it do you?

 

[Captain America]

It's all about the elections. It's all about sucking up to voters. Both sides alike. All the issues facing us today and they gotta waste their time worrying about queers jumping the broom?

It's not really my battle except when I think about slamming the door shut to liberty for future generations.

I wonder how we would like it if our forefathers, 100 years ago, finalized preventing certain liberties and did not allow us to decide for ourselves many years later?

Perhaps, an amendment forever disallowing women to vote? Or an amendment outlawing racial integration? That's how they felt about things back then. Are we not glad that we were able to make corrections to their ways of thinking? Aren't we glad they had the foresight not to close the doors for future generations to decide their own fate?

Gays can't marry where I live. That's how people feel about that around here these days. But in 100 years they may think differently. Maybe not. Who are we to mandate to them the directions their liberties show go?

Simple people wrap their minds around simple things I suppose. Their votes count as well as a studied person. That's the only reason they are wasting so much time on this in the first place.

America. Gotta love it!

Happy weekend all.

 

[FallingPianos]

What does the Constitution have to do with it?

everything. the 14th amendment protects us from discrimination based on sex.

Homosexual advocates don't want it publicly known that they wish to change the definition

thats simply not true, they very explicitly are saying that the definition needs to be changed to include them.

of course, so they try to throw up similar arguments to yours, pretending the issue is somehow over "equal rights". Even though gays have always had equal rights in marriage

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html
Loving v. Virginia
The State does not contend in its argument before this Court that its powers to regulate marriage are unlimited notwithstanding the commands of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nor could it do so. Instead, the State argues that the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause, as illuminated by the statements of the Framers, is only that state penal laws containing an interracial element as part of the definition of the offense must apply equally to whites and Negroes in the sense that members of each race are punished to the same degree. Thus, the State contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race. The second argument advanced by the State assumes the validity of its equal application theory. The argument is that, if the Equal Protection Clause does not outlaw miscegenation statutes because of their reliance on racial classifications, the question of constitutionality would thus become whether there was any rational basis for a State to treat interracial marriages differently from other marriages. On this question, the State argues, the scientific evidence is substantially in doubt and, consequently, this Court should defer to the wisdom of the state legislature in adopting its policy of discouraging interracial marriages.

Because we reject the notion that the mere "equal application" of a statute containing racial classifications is enough to remove the classifications from the Fourteenth Amendment's proscription of all invidious racial discriminations, we do not accept the State's contention that these statutes should be upheld if there is any possible basis for concluding that they serve a rational purpose. The mere fact of equal application does not mean that our analysis of these statutes should follow the approach we have taken in cases involving no racial discrimination where the Equal Protection Clause has been arrayed against a statute discriminating between the kinds of advertising which may be displayed on trucks in New York City or an exemption in Ohio's ad valorem tax for merchandise owned by a nonresident in a storage warehouse. In these cases, involving distinctions not drawn according to race, the Court has merely asked whether there is any rational foundation for the discriminations, and has deferred to the wisdom of the state legislatures. In the case at bar, however, we deal with statutes containing racial classifications, and the fact of equal application does not immunize the statute from the very heavy burden of justification which the Fourteenth Amendment has traditionally required of state statutes drawn according to race.

the 14th amendment has also traditionally protected discrimination based on sex. a man cannot marry another man for no other reason than the fact that he is male. the fact that this is true for women also cant marry women is completely irrelevant, equall application doesnt cut it.

 

[FallingPianos]

That is and idiotic comparison........Blacks velong to a race.......Being gay is a lifestyle.........I know a lot of African Americans who are offended by your ridiculous comparison....

maybe some are, but none have said a word to me. im guessing the ones that are are against same sex marriage, and if they are I simply dont care if they're offended.

 

[jfuh]

This is just another one of those dirty politics.
Notice how only during time of an election year are gays brought up?
The republicans are not fairing very well right now in approval by the american public. The only stance that they can use to incite emotional 10% religious right to vote for them is the gay card now.

They play this card and say oooh look at those sodomizing democrats. They support something against your faith and beliefs, vote for me and we'll pass an amendment to completely ban gay marriage.

I would think that the religious right by now would have realized that they are being lied to. It's simply impossible for any such constitutional amendment to ever pass through congress. The amendment itself would be unconstitutional through the discrimination of a particular minority of ppls.

Just another old campaign tactic.

 

[FallingPianos]

I would think that the religious right by now would have realized that they are being lied to. It's simply impossible for any such constitutional amendment to ever pass through congress. The amendment itself would be unconstitutional through the discrimination of a particular minority of ppls.

no, the amendment would be perfectly constitutional by definition, not that I think its right.

Just another old campaign tactic.

unfortunatly it works. people voted for bush in 2004 because he opposes abortion and gay marriage.

 

[danarhea]

So the GOP passed an amendment today in the Senate proposing a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Obviously they didn't want anyone to see it. As far as I know, no major network covered it, but I happen to have C-Span 3.

My main man Russ Feingold walked out of the secret session. The amendment has no chance of passing a vote scheduled for June.

I think this wedge issue is pretty well played out, but I guess Rove thinks there's some more mileage left with it.



http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7003630524

This is an Unconstitutional infringement on the rights of the states, but like the Roe v. Wade decision and other infringements on states' rights, the Federal government insists that Americans are too dumb to look after themselves, and thus need a Federal nanny to control their lives. The Republicans at one time stood for limited government. What a lie that turned out to be. They are no different than Democrats now, and I can hear Ronald Reagan turning in his grave.

 

[FallingPianos]

This is an Unconstitutional infringement on the rights of the states, but like the Roe v. Wade decision and other infringements on states' rights, the Federal government insists that Americans are too dumb to look after themselves, and thus need a Federal nanny to control their lives. The Republicans at one time stood for limited government. What a lie that turned out to be. They are no different than Democrats now, and I can hear Ronald Reagan turning in his grave.

there is nothing unconstitutional about trying to pass a amendment to the constitution as long as the process outlined in the constitution is used. it doesnt matter what the contents of that amendment is.

 

[jfuh]

everything. the 14th amendment protects us from discrimination based on sex.

Sorry but this I have to point out.
Sex in the 14th is not sexual preference, it is specifically sex of gender.

What I find most interesting though is that America has a problem with homosexuals marrying, yet has no problem with inscest. There's redneck culture for you.

 

[FallingPianos]

Sorry but this I have to point out.
Sex in the 14th is not sexual preference, it is specifically sex of gender.

What I find most interesting though is that America has a problem with homosexuals marrying, yet has no problem with inscest. There's redneck culture for you.

actually, niether race nor sex is explicitly meantioned the 14th amendment. I was refering to how the courts have traditionally interpreted it.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

 

[jfuh]

no, the amendment would be perfectly constitutional by definition, not that I think its right.

Even should the congress make such a amendment, it does not have the constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause to limit prohibit states from authorizing such marriages. AS long as one state within the Union recognizes it, well then gay marriage is legal.

unfortunatly it works. people voted for bush in 2004 because he opposes abortion and gay marriage.

It worked very effectively in Ohio and Florida for Bush. Ppl need to get thier heads out of thier a$$es about marriage.
This year, you can bet that Rove is going to put gay adoption on the agenda of all incumbent republicans - that is unless he gets indicted.

 

[FallingPianos]

Even should the congress make such a amendment, it does not have the constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause to limit prohibit states from authorizing such marriages. AS long as one state within the Union recognizes it, well then gay marriage is legal.

if the amendment passed, an exception would be made for the case of marriage is my guess. im not sure what would happen if the constitution had two statements that directly contradicted eachother. my guess is that the most recently adopted part would rule.

 

[jfuh]

if the amendment passed, an exception would be made for the case of marriage is my guess. im not sure what would happen if the constitution had two statements that directly contradicted eachother. my guess is that the most recently adopted part would rule.

Congress does not have that sort of authority at all. Overrulling state authority as per the commerce act would have serious implications into state governance. The Supreme court would more then likly over rule any such amendment as unconstitutional.
In fact the federal technically can not even make amendment to force the constitutionality of gay marriage even if it wanted to because specifically of self governance. However, congress can amend against discrimination of marriage for gays.

What really blows my mind is how incest is allowed but not gay marriage?

 

[FallingPianos]

Congress does not have that sort of authority at all. Overrulling state authority as per the commerce act would have serious implications into state governance. The Supreme court would more then likly over rule any such amendment as unconstitutional.
In fact the federal technically can not even make amendment to force the constitutionality of gay marriage even if it wanted to because specifically of self governance. However, congress can amend against discrimination of marriage for gays.

the congress with the states has the power to amend the constitution however it pleases.

 

[hipsterdufus]

In fact, homosexuals and theri advocates do not want "equal rights" - they already have them. What they want, is to change the fundamental definition and purpose of marriage. It is for that reason that they are resoundingly defeated each and every time they let their issue go to a popular vote, and always will.

We now return you to your regular programming.

Do your homework. Gays absolutely DO NOT have the same rights as married couples. You only need to look as far as hospital rights, property rights or inheretence rights.

I said in my post that this has no chance of passing, if you would bother to read it. The GOP is simply trying to get more mileage off of the 2006 hatred agenda: gay bashing, immigrant bashing etc. etc.