Not Over Yet- Bush, senators renew fight against gay marriage

[fortiesfun]

Dub should up the ante. He should oppose gay marriage among illegal aliens who went to see The Da Vinci Code and voted for Katharine McPhee.
​

Funny. Probably be funnier if I didn't fit three of the four criteria...

 

[DC_DEEP]

I'm watching C-SPAN2 right at this moment, and they are discussing this issue. Sen. Allard is being interviewed, and his rationale for sponsoring this amendment is "protecting marriage", both intrinsically and from "activist courts." He has not mentioned adding a prohibition against divorce in this "protection." Sen. Warner (R-VA) spoke in support of this amendment protecting marriage. How many times has he been divorced? I just cannot understand how rampant (50%) divorce is protecting the institution of marriage, and couples who have been together for 20+ years marrying would destroy it.

I implore all sensible persons to immediately contact their senators and voice opposition to this amendment - at least demand that if they are going to protect marriage, they should instead prohibit divorce.

 

[faceking]

AND the pollster research clearly shows that Americans under 40 do not have a problem with gay rights/gay marriage.

That's all fine and good Lex... however, Americans under 40 aren't a strong enough voting base during non-presidential elections, as it's more the "Geritol crowd". Second, polls are about as laughable, in either way/side... can't recall how many polls if not all (aside from Fox, and even they were wrong), had Kerry winning by significant numbers. Zogby is the worst... scratch that... the LA Times is evil.

 

[Matthew]

and his rationale for sponsoring this amendment is "protecting marriage", both intrinsically and from "activist courts."

Watch how effortlessly and hypocritically they will adopt the exact opposite position when they go after abortion.

 

[Lex]

I implore all sensible persons to immediately contact their senators and voice opposition to this amendment - at least demand that if they are going to protect marriage, they should instead prohibit divorce.

I laugh when they talk of the sanctity of marriage and how liberal activists are destroying it. In a world where Brittany Spears can marry and divorce (annull) within 2 days, queer activists are eroding marriage? Riiight.

That's all fine and good Lex... however, Americans under 40 aren't a strong enough voting base during non-presidential elections, as it's more the "Geritol crowd". ..

True and Conservatives are also seeing this (under 40 saying who cares) as the slow death of some of their flashpoint, galvanizing issues.

According to a recent Time article, something like 60% of highschool upperclassmen and college freshman and sophomores think that this is a non-issue. These people will eventually be the older voter base, hence the worry.

-------------------

I emailed both my Senators and my House Rep with the following:

Dear XXXX,

I am writing you to express my sincerest hopes that you will vote against any Constitutional amendment that defines marriage as "between and man and a woman." Many politicians are saying that marriage must be protected and should be defined as such in order to do so. As a married father of two who came from a broken home, it seems clear to me that the quickest way to "protect marriage" would be to limit divorce.

Why should we legislate that men and women of the same sex who have been together for 5, 10, 15, 20+ years can not be married and live peacefully while allowing people to marry and divorce within days or even hours? As a close friend aptly put it "I just cannot understand how rampant (50%) divorce is protecting the institution of marriage, and couples who have been together for 20+ years marrying would destroy it."

I understand the economic implications of gay marriage--that businesses and corporation would have to incur increased employee costs for benefits for same-sex spouses. To that I say: So? Don't we want to promote family and monogamy? Don't we want to have stable adult households around our great country? How can more people marrying be a bad thing if it promotes stable households and communities within our country?

There are far more pressing issues for our country to address: The War in Iraq, hunger, New Orleans in the wake of Katrina, Our failing education system. This a proposed amendment is nothing more than a smokescreen to distract us from far more important and pressing matters.

Thank you for your time and attention, XXXX. Again--I would hope that you can see through the smoke and mirrors and would not vote to increase the marginalization and discrimination against a group who know its sting all to well.

Best Regards,

 

[DC_DEEP]

Thank you, Lex. Eloquent. This is the kind of stuff I have been hoping to see being sent... not knee-jerk reactions. Of course, in my first round, I asked my Senators and Representative to explain to me how such an amendment could be squared with "Full Faith and Credit," Amendment One, and Amendment Fourteen. Senator Warner sent me back a non-answer. The other two did not bother to respond. Shit. If they are going to use the Constitution as a legal lexicon and define marriage, they should at least include the phrase "indissoluble union"... I still think that any legislators who have ever been divorced should be recused from the vote.

 

[Dr Rock]

There are far more pressing issues for our country to address: The War in Iraq, hunger, New Orleans in the wake of Katrina, Our failing education system.

not gonna get very far with that line of reasoning, since those are all things that politicians absolutely DON'T want to address.

 

[DC_DEEP]

not gonna get very far with that line of reasoning, since those are all things that politicians absolutely DON'T want to address.

But see, Doc, that's my point exactly, I want them to get input from THOUSANDS of constituents, demanding that they address the issues they would rather avoid. <sigh> if only our general public were not so stupid as to fall for the diversionary tactics. And by the way, I actually got two takers on my challenge... That's surprising (that I got even that many) and no surprise at all (that there were not more.) In my many political challenges on this board in the last couple of years, that's two more than usual.

 

[Dr Rock]

But see, Doc, that's my point exactly, I want them to get input from THOUSANDS of constituents, demanding that they address the issues they would rather avoid. <sigh>

i guarantee you that they still wouldn't care, unless or until it coincided with their own vested interests.

 

[DC_DEEP]

i guarantee you that they still wouldn't care, unless or until it coincided with their own vested interests.

Hopefully, the eventual outcome (in my own little rose-colored ideal world) would be that they deal with it, or next election we put someone in who WILL deal with it. Unfortunately, I live in the land of lemmings and sheep.

 

[ryan10plus]

Yawn. ..More of the same old distractions. Primary's are just around the corner, ratings are so low, so.... once again it's time to get people thinking about anything other than real issues and what's really happening in this country. WAKE UP!! Look elsewhere for "real news" outside of NBC, NY Times etc. etc.(so corporate owned, such obvious propaganda!) Throw your television in the trash. Time is running out.

 

[rob_just_rob]

I'm watching C-SPAN2 right at this moment, and they are discussing this issue. Sen. Allard is being interviewed, and his rationale for sponsoring this amendment is "protecting marriage", both intrinsically and from "activist courts." He has not mentioned adding a prohibition against divorce in this "protection." Sen. Warner (R-VA) spoke in support of this amendment protecting marriage. How many times has he been divorced? I just cannot understand how rampant (50%) divorce is protecting the institution of marriage, and couples who have been together for 20+ years marrying would destroy it.

I implore all sensible persons to immediately contact their senators and voice opposition to this amendment - at least demand that if they are going to protect marriage, they should instead prohibit divorce.

Well done. :biggrin1: I've been pointing out for some time that divorce (obviously!) is more harmful to marriage as an institution (and to individual marriages) than same-sex marriage is. "'Till death do us part" is long gone.

And where is the evidence that same-sex marriage is harmful to marriage? I just love how opponents of SSM keep repeating how harmful it is, over and over, without even an attempt to produce something, anything, to support that assertion. Where are all the sound bites of impressionable straight teens, solemnly stating that the institution of marriage has lost all meaning for them now that gays can marry? Where are the economists pointing out the dramatic drop in anniversary card sales? Where are the sociologists with the charts showing the dramatic jump in divorce rates - oops, they jumped long before gay marriage was even an issue...

 

[SpeedoGuy]

I just love how opponents of SSM keep repeating how harmful it is, over and over, without even an attempt to produce something, anything, to support that assertion.

This is just more of the kind of tripe the so-called leaders in Washington DC serve up when they need to distract attention from clusterfucks like Iraq or Katrina. Just like Terry Schiavo or the flag burning amendment or sending the National Guard to the Mexican border... its all posturing and drama. And all according to Karl Rove's instructions.

 

[Freddie53]

In talking to our senators and representatives we need to focus on the fact that laws governing mariage have in the entire life of our Republic been in the domain of the individual states and that the states are honor bound and legally bound to honor marriages from other states. The marriage vows end with by the powers invesed by the state of ".....", not by powers invested by the U S Consitution.

We would be fools to change that basic relationship. We don't want divorce and marriage to be determined in federal courts.

If it is argued on this premise, then the very premise of conservatism, states rights, is brought to the forefront of the discussion. True conservatives woud be against the intrusion of the federal goernment into yet another area of our lives.

 

[rob_just_rob]

If it is argued on this premise, then the very premise of conservatism, states rights, is brought to the forefront of the discussion. True conservatives woud be against the intrusion of the federal goernment into yet another area of our lives.

I don't think there are true conservatives out there anymore. Same goes for true liberals.

"Liberals" want government to regulate business, and stay out of their bedrooms. "Conservatives" want government to leave business alone, but are happy to have it in the bedroom.

Democrats - tax and spend
Republicans - don't tax, but still spend
Democrats - tax the middle class and blow the money on social programs
Republicans - tax the middle class and blow the money on weapons

And people say the two parties are virtually identical!

 

[Freddie53]

I don't think there are true conservatives out there anymore. Same goes for true liberals.

"Liberals" want government to regulate business, and stay out of their bedrooms. "Conservatives" want government to leave business alone, but are happy to have it in the bedroom.

Democrats - tax and spend
Republicans - don't tax, but still spend
Democrats - tax the middle class and blow the money on social programs
Republicans - tax the middle class and blow the money on weapons

And people say the two parties are virtually identical!

You have a valid point. The true conservatives aren't running the Republican Party. True conservatives through the years have favored leaving as much to the individual states as possible leaving primarily national defense, foreign policy adn the regulation of money and commerce to the federal government.

But this latest batch of "conservatives" and I use the term with a bit of question, are interested in increasing the power of the federal government which goes against every Republican Platform for decades.

True conservatives would be for leaving questions concerning mariage to the individual states.

Not that I consider myself conservative. But that is what used to be the "conservative agenda" - states rights.

True liberals would be against the marriage amendment as well, but for totally dieffent reasons. True liberals would be against straight marriage amendments at the state level as well wheras true conservatives would be for striaght marriage amendments at the state only level.

The whole thing is still a sham. The American people should have a little more integrity than to fall for this latest attempt by the Bush Administration to deflect attention to their disastrous foreign and domestic policies.

 

[DC_DEEP]

In talking to our senators and representatives we need to focus on the fact that laws governing mariage have in the entire life of our Republic been in the domain of the individual states and that the states are honor bound and legally bound to honor marriages from other states. The marriage vows end with by the powers invesed by the state of ".....", not by powers invested by the U S Consitution.

We would be fools to change that basic relationship. We don't want divorce and marriage to be determined in federal courts.

If it is argued on this premise, then the very premise of conservatism, states rights, is brought to the forefront of the discussion. True conservatives woud be against the intrusion of the federal goernment into yet another area of our lives.

Sen Allard, who sponsored the amendment, claims that the amendment would protect states' rights. For what it's worth, I think the federal government should do one of two things with marriage: either require all states and the federal government to provide all consenting adult citizens the right to marry whom they choose, or: strip all civil involvement in marriage, and leave it to the religious institutions. For any government to bestow legal and financial rights, benefits, and incentives to one group of citizens and deny it to another is just wrong on so many levels.

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

The only reason marriage is defined specifically in terms of gender legally is because the wife was the property of the husband traditionally. When that changed, gender should've been dropped from the terms of marriage, but as it wasn't, now people are mixing modern issues with traditional writs of law to make excuses for imposing religious views on issues of state.

For any government to bestow legal and financial rights, benefits, and incentives to one group of citizens and deny it to another is just wrong on so many levels.

My homosexual friend couldn't care less about all that gay rights shit. He heard there are tax benefits for the marriage thing though. So, being the goddamn Negro that he is, he'll do anything for more government money.

 

[Shelby]

The only reason marriage is defined specifically in terms of gender legally is because the wife was the property of the husband traditionally.

*longing for the good old days* :tongue:

 

[Lex]

Senate Blocks Same Sex Marriage Ban

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate rejected Wednesday a bid to amend the Constitution to essentially ban same-sex marriage.

Republicans pushed the plan even though supporters conceded the measure did not have enough votes to pass.
Proponents failed to get the 60 votes needed to end debate and move to a vote on the actual amendment. The Senate vote was 49-48 to end debate.
Opponents called the measure an election-year ploy that wasted precious time on the legislative calendar.


"This is not about the preservation of marriage. This is about the preservation of a majority," Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, said as debate started Wednesday. "I think, sadly, most people realize there's political motivation here."
Republican senators said 45 states have passed laws or constitutional amendments defining marriage as a pact between a man and a woman. "The voice of the people has been heard loud and clear," Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colorado, said.


The real impetus behind the debate was to energize conservative voters this fall, CNN's Dana Bash reported.


Those conservatives feel like Republicans they've sent to Washington "have sort of turned their backs on them on key issues that they care about like same-sex marriage... That is why you're seeing the Senate take up those issues this week," Bash said.


Sen. Ted Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, denounced the proposed amendment Tuesday as "an instrument of bigotry and prejudice," which he said was designed by the GOP leadership "to try to bring Republican senators out of the ditch of disapproval."


And Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said that "the reason the Senate Republicans are pushing this marriage amendment is because they don't want to address the real issues of this country."
"This is an effort by the president and the majority in the House and the Senate to distort, to misdirect what the real issues are," he said.


The vote began around 10 a.m., after a final hour of debate. The Senate began debate on the amendment Monday afternoon.
Even if the measure had been able to clear the procedural vote, a two-thirds majority -- 67 votes -- would be required for final approval of a constitutional amendment -- an even higher hurdle to overcome.


The last time the Senate voted on the amendment, in July 2004, only 48 senators supported it and 50 were opposed. Spurred on by religious conservatives in his political base, President Bush had called on the Senate to approve the amendment, saying it was necessary to protect the institution of marriage from state court decisions striking down marriage laws that exclude gay and lesbian couples. So far that has happened in just one state, Massachusetts, where same-sex marriages became legal in 2003, although court cases are pending in other states.


To become part of the Constitution an amendment needs approval from at least two-thirds of the Senate (67 of the 100 members), at least two-thirds of the House (290 of the 435 members) and three-fourths of the states (38 of the 50 states), or by a convention called by three-fourths of the states.


In the nearly 220 years since the Constitution was written, only 27 amendments have made it through this arduous approval process, the most recent in 1992 governing the timing of changes in congressional compensation. No amendment has been approved by a convention.
CNN's Dana Bash contributed to this report.