Federal Marriage Amendment KILLED

[Josephine96]

Procedural Vote Kills Marriage Amendment In U.S. Senate

POSTED: 10:10 am EDT July 14, 2004
UPDATED: 3:54 pm EDT July 14, 2004

A procedural vote Wednesday ended the U.S. Senate's consideration of an amendment to define marriage as only between a man and a woman.



SAME-SEX MARRIAGE?
Explore Marriage, Laws and the Constitution
Support Amendments?




Republicans did not have enough votes to break a Democratic filibuster that would allow consideration of a change to the proposed amendment. The 50-48 vote was 12 short of the 60 needed to keep the measure alive.

Republicans proposed separate versions of the measure.

One version was just one sentence long, stating that marriage in the United States could only be between a woman and a man. A longer version clarified that no state's constitution "shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidence thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

Democrats successfully bet that the Senate would not reach the 60 votes needed to break the deadlock. It means that senators did not vote specifically on the amendment, just on whether to continue debate.

But the amendment's sponsor, Colorado Republican Wayne Allard, said before the vote, "We're just beginning to defend marriage, and this debate may go well beyond this year."

Missouri Republican Jim Talent said Americans of all races and religions support traditional marriage and believe that children do best in a family with a mother and a father.

But California Democrat Barbara Boxer said some faiths recognize same-sex marriage, and she called the proposed amendment "a weapon of mass distraction" from more important issues.

Even if the amendment were to pass Congress, it would need to be ratified by the states before taking effect.

Senators John Kerry and John Edwards were the only two not to vote.

President George W. Bush called for the amendment earlier this year after a court ruling in Massachusetts said that state cannot prevent same-sex couples from marrying under its constitution. The state began allowing homosexual couples to marry this spring, though the state Legislature has already passed a preliminary amendment to end the practice.

That amendment must be approved by legislators again, and then by the people of the state.

House Looks At Marriage, Too

Meanwhile, the House Judiciary Committee holds a hearing Wednesday on a measure that would strip federal courts of jurisdiction over the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

The DOMA, as it's called, passed Congress overwhelmingly and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996. It defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman under federal law and exempts states from being forced to recognize gay marriages performed in other states.

Some senators argue that DOMA precludes the need for a constitutional ban on gay marriage. But supporters of the Federal Marriage Amendment say federal courts could soon strike down the 1996 law.

Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to remove issues from federal courts' jurisdiction. Unlike a constitutional amendment, such a bill would only need a majority of the House and Senate and the president's signature to take effect.

[OtherHD]

GREAT news!!

[Wnghs2007]

Sucky News Of Course!!!!!!!! 3% of the population winning over 55% of the senate. When 85-90% of the population dont support gay marriage. They are just to wimpy thinking they might hurt someones feelings. Oh well. I guess I just should believe what most of the liberals would like me to believe. That there is nothing wrong with that. Well I wont!!!!!!!!!!

[OtherHD]

Uh, the majority of Americans don't support the AMENDMENT banning gay marriage. There IS a distinction.

[dryline22]

Sucky News Of Course!!!!!!!! 3% of the population winning over 55% of the senate. When 85-90% of the population dont support gay marriage. They are just to wimpy thinking they might hurt someones feelings. Oh well. I guess I just should believe what most of the liberals would like me to believe. That there is nothing wrong with that. Well I wont!!!!!!!!!!

1. Where the heck did you get that 3% figure from?

2. I believe the percentage opposing gay marriage is more in the 60-75% range.

3. When even Sen. McCain and several other Republicans condemn this amendment as the ludicrous overreaction it is, it should be apparent that it is not going to see the light of day until circumstances change dramatically, whether that be a shift in American social political views towards the right with time (highly unlikely per history IMHO) or too rapid a push by the left to get it instituted nationwide at a time when most still oppose gay marriage, even if not vocally or actively in all cases.

4. It is a shame that "hurting people's feelings" is such a moot point to you; I assume you are Christian; if so, it should play a huge role in your stance on this. You may oppose gay marriage as strongly as you wish, but it should be calmly and with sympathy and understanding towards those who have made a "poor" lifestyle choice, not an adrenaline-pumping mechanism and excuse for release of tension. If you're going to play the religion card, you have to do so fully and without contradiction.

[GalvestonDuck]

*smacks head on keyboard*

It is NOT about the gay marriage issue. It's about creating an amendment to the country's Constitution to ban said marriages. Many who are against gay marriage are also against the Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages. You gotta use your brain on this. It's like reading a poorly written poll question or test question, designed to make you answer a certain way based on throwing certain words in your face to which you'll react emotionally.

Even though the amendment failed, it does not make gay marriages sudden legal and accepted and all that jazz.

Furthermore, K.C., I just don't get how it's okay for you to watch two women on video (which makes it totally sinful and lustful) for your own pleasure (also lust), but not okay when it's done behind closed doors in a loving, committed relationship. What sense does that make? That's so backwards.

[Wnghs2007]

Uh, the majority of Americans don't support the AMENDMENT banning gay marriage. There IS a distinction.

Ummmmmmm. I didnt say that. I say they dont support gay marriage.

[GalvestonDuck]

Yeah, we got what YOU said....you're not getting the difference, are you?

[Guest]

Sucky News Of Course!!!!!!!! 3% of the population winning over 55% of the senate. When 85-90% of the population dont support gay marriage. They are just to wimpy thinking they might hurt someones feelings. Oh well. I guess I just should believe what most of the liberals would like me to believe. That there is nothing wrong with that. Well I wont!!!!!!!!!!

The factual inaccuracies here are staggering.

Get a clue TG.

[vbhoutex]

It is a shame that "hurting people's feelings" is such a moot point to you; I assume you are Christian; if so, it should play a huge role in your stance on this. You may oppose gay marriage as strongly as you wish, but it should be calmly and with sympathy and understanding towards those who have made a "poor" lifestyle choice, not an adrenaline-pumping mechanism and excuse for release of tension. If you're going to play the religion card, you have to do so fully and without contradiction.

Support the amendment or not this is THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH!!!

[Guest]

1. Where the heck did you get that 3% figure from?

2. I believe the percentage opposing gay marriage is more in the 60-75% range.

3. When even Sen. McCain and several other Republicans condemn this amendment as the ludicrous overreaction it is, it should be apparent that it is not going to see the light of day until circumstances change dramatically, whether that be a shift in American social political views towards the right with time (highly unlikely per history IMHO) or too rapid a push by the left to get it instituted nationwide at a time when most still oppose gay marriage, even if not vocally or actively in all cases.

4. It is a shame that "hurting people's feelings" is such a moot point to you; I assume you are Christian; if so, it should play a huge role in your stance on this. You may oppose gay marriage as strongly as you wish, but it should be calmly and with sympathy and understanding towards those who have made a "poor" lifestyle choice, not an adrenaline-pumping mechanism and excuse for release of tension. If you're going to play the religion card, you have to do so fully and without contradiction.

1. I think he was saying that of the 3% of our population who support gay marriage, they got represented by 55% of congress.
2. Difference of opinion, I'm inclined to think more like 75% or so myself.
3. That too rapid of a push has happened, in Massachusetts (I think) just this year. This is not some ludicrous overreaction, it is in defense of the institution of marriage. This country defends the rights of every foreigner who comes here, giving them the right to honor their traditions/heritage/religious beliefs and what have you. What is wrong with Americans wanting their beliefs preserved, in this case being the institution of marriage?
4. What gives you the right to tell him, as a Christian, how he should feel and react? As a Christian myself, I feel my religion is being attacked, not only by the idea of gay marriage, but by many other new ideologies. Our Supreme Justices are off track with the way the majority of Americans feel, and the implementation of an amendment would stop them from forever changing the institution of marriage as we know it.
...Jennifer...

[Skywatch_NC]

1. Where the heck did you get that 3% figure from?

2. I believe the percentage opposing gay marriage is more in the 60-75% range.

3. When even Sen. McCain and several other Republicans condemn this amendment as the ludicrous overreaction it is, it should be apparent that it is not going to see the light of day until circumstances change dramatically, whether that be a shift in American social political views towards the right with time (highly unlikely per history IMHO) or too rapid a push by the left to get it instituted nationwide at a time when most still oppose gay marriage, even if not vocally or actively in all cases.

4. It is a shame that "hurting people's feelings" is such a moot point to you; I assume you are Christian; if so, it should play a huge role in your stance on this. You may oppose gay marriage as strongly as you wish, but it should be calmly and with sympathy and understanding towards those who have made a "poor" lifestyle choice, not an adrenaline-pumping mechanism and excuse for release of tension. If you're going to play the religion card, you have to do so fully and without contradiction.

1. I think he was saying that of the 3% of our population who support gay marriage, they got represented by 55% of congress.
2. Difference of opinion, I'm inclined to think more like 75% or so myself.
3. That too rapid of a push has happened, in Massachusetts (I think) just this year. This is not some ludicrous overreaction, it is in defense of the institution of marriage. This country defends the rights of every foreigner who comes here, giving them the right to honor their traditions/heritage/religious beliefs and what have you. What is wrong with Americans wanting their beliefs preserved, in this case being the institution of marriage?
4. What gives you the right to tell him, as a Christian, how he should feel and react? As a Christian myself, I feel my religion is being attacked, not only by the idea of gay marriage, but by many other new ideologies. Our Supreme Justices are off track with the way the majority of Americans feel, and the implementation of an amendment would stop them from forever changing the institution of marriage as we know it.
...Jennifer...

AMEN, Jen!

[GalvestonDuck]

1. I think he was saying that of the 3% of our population who support gay marriage, they got represented by 55% of congress.

But that's still not accurate. 3% could be in support of gay marriage which means 97% are opposed to it. But those 97% might not all be for the amendment to ban. Just because they're opposed to the marriage part doesn't mean they're in favor of creating an amendment to flat out ban it.

You guys are still trying to focus on the marriage part itelf and not the passage or defeat of the amendment.

[dryline22]

Jen and Skywatch, the 3% figure is transparent bogus pulled straight out of KC's... eh, I mean the air. We all exaggerate from time to time, but that number is just over-the-top. I have seen the actual figure before, and cannot recall it off the top of my head, but it is somewhere in the 15-30% range.

[Guest]

1. Where the heck did you get that 3% figure from?

2. I believe the percentage opposing gay marriage is more in the 60-75% range.

3. When even Sen. McCain and several other Republicans condemn this amendment as the ludicrous overreaction it is, it should be apparent that it is not going to see the light of day until circumstances change dramatically, whether that be a shift in American social political views towards the right with time (highly unlikely per history IMHO) or too rapid a push by the left to get it instituted nationwide at a time when most still oppose gay marriage, even if not vocally or actively in all cases.

4. It is a shame that "hurting people's feelings" is such a moot point to you; I assume you are Christian; if so, it should play a huge role in your stance on this. You may oppose gay marriage as strongly as you wish, but it should be calmly and with sympathy and understanding towards those who have made a "poor" lifestyle choice, not an adrenaline-pumping mechanism and excuse for release of tension. If you're going to play the religion card, you have to do so fully and without contradiction.

1. I think he was saying that of the 3% of our population who support gay marriage, they got represented by 55% of congress.
2. Difference of opinion, I'm inclined to think more like 75% or so myself.
3. That too rapid of a push has happened, in Massachusetts (I think) just this year. This is not some ludicrous overreaction, it is in defense of the institution of marriage. This country defends the rights of every foreigner who comes here, giving them the right to honor their traditions/heritage/religious beliefs and what have you. What is wrong with Americans wanting their beliefs preserved, in this case being the institution of marriage?
4. What gives you the right to tell him, as a Christian, how he should feel and react? As a Christian myself, I feel my religion is being attacked, not only by the idea of gay marriage, but by many other new ideologies. Our Supreme Justices are off track with the way the majority of Americans feel, and the implementation of an amendment would stop them from forever changing the institution of marriage as we know it.
...Jennifer...

Notwithstanding the constitutional amendment issue, the notion that only 3% of the country supports Gay Marriage is preposterous and unsupportable.

[Wnghs2007]

Jen and Skywatch, the 3% figure is transparent bogus pulled straight out of KC's... eh, I mean the air. We all exaggerate from time to time, but that number is just over-the-top. I have seen the actual figure before, and cannot recall it off the top of my head, but it is somewhere in the 15-30% range.

Only 3% of people support gay marriage. And I do not appreciate being told what to think like you have done in one of your previous posts above.

Also For GalvestonDuck we get your point. And we are looking at the federal Marriage admendment. I have done said those that support it are to scared to even rear there head that they might get bashed and called racists and pacifists and hate groups. Which is a bunch of Bologni if I may say so my self.

Also, I am done with the subject.

[Wnghs2007]

Notwithstanding the constitutional amendment issue, the notion that only 3% of the country supports Gay Marriage is preposterous and unsupportable.

Actually its the truth zwyts.

[Guest]

Jen and Skywatch, the 3% figure is transparent bogus pulled straight out of KC's... eh, I mean the air. We all exaggerate from time to time, but that number is just over-the-top. I have seen the actual figure before, and cannot recall it off the top of my head, but it is somewhere in the 15-30% range.

Only 3% of people support gay marriage. And I do not appreciate being told what to think like you have done in one of your previous posts above.

Also For GalvestonDuck we get your point. And we are looking at the federal Marriage admendment. I have done said those that support it are to scared to even rear there head that they might get bashed and called racists and pacifists and hate groups. Which is a bunch of Bologni if I may say so my self.

Also, I am done with the subject.

KC.....Either link the info with the 3% figure or stop making up numbers.

[Guest]

Notwithstanding the constitutional amendment issue, the notion that only 3% of the country supports Gay Marriage is preposterous and unsupportable.

Actually its the truth zwyts.

link please KC.

[dryline22]

4. What gives you the right to tell him, as a Christian, how he should feel and react? As a Christian myself, I feel my religion is being attacked, not only by the idea of gay marriage, but by many other new ideologies. Our Supreme Justices are off track with the way the majority of Americans feel, and the implementation of an amendment would stop them from forever changing the institution of marriage as we know it.
...Jennifer...

AMEN, Jen!

No AMEN from me, as I disagree with every sentence of the quote.

I do not have the right to tell him how he should react, but I do have the right to point out contradictions, at which point he can choose to consider or not to consider their validity.

The Supreme Court justices are in place to uphold the Constitution, not to please the majority of Americans. If the American population is in favor of an official action that is unconstitutional, they are to stop it dead in its tracks. Keep in mind this is just a general principle; I am not getting into the constitutionality of this particular idea. The point still stands, though, that your outrage at judges overriding majority opinion is largely unwarranted IMO.