javapride
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2003
- Messages
- 6,511
- Reaction score
- 0
Gay marriage vote appears doomed
Senate leaders unable to agree on procedure
Senate Majority Leader Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., says the American people need to know where their senators stand on marriage.
By Tom Curry
National affairs writer
MSNBC
Updated: 10:21 a.m. ET July 13, 2004
WASHINGTON - Senate Democrats on Tuesday appeared headed toward a tactical victory over the hot-button issue of gay marriage.
advertisement
Click Here!
What seemed likely Monday — an up-or-down Senate vote on a proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage as only "the union of a man and a woman" — appeared very doubtful a day later as Republican and Democratic leaders were unable to agree on a procedure for a vote.
Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has scheduled a Wednesday vote on cloture, a procedural move that would limit debate on the topic and allow the Senate to proceed to voting on the proposed amendment itself.
Senators who who want to avoid casting election-year votes on the amendment, one way or the other, will vote against cloture and it seems unlikely that Frist will be able to muster the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture and allow a vote on the amendment.
That will let Democrats who didn't want to cast a vote on the question of whether marriage should be limited to heterosexual couples breathing easier.
The Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry, had said that he and his running mate, Sen. John Edwards, would return to the Senate from campaigning to vote against the amendment. But since it now appears there will be no vote, Kerry and Edwards will not need to show up.
Definition of marriage
The proposed amendment, sponsored by Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., declares, “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.”
On Monday, some Republicans were preparing to offer an alternative that would include only the first sentence of Allard's amendment, dropping the second. This alternative would seem to open the way to states permitting and authorizing civil unions which would provide many of the benefits of marriage.
Do you think there should be a constitutional amendment that bans gay marriage?
Yes
No
Vote to see results
Tune in to MSNBC for discussions on this question throughout the day and to hear some of your e-mails on air.
But Frist and Senate Minority Leader Sen. Tom Daschle were unable to strike a deal on how to permit a vote both on the Allard amendment and on the alternative version.
Allard's opponents say there is no need to amend the Constitution since there’s no likelihood that same-sex marriage will spread beyond Massachusetts, the only state where it is now legal.
In their view, the Allard amendment is a divisive election-year gambit. Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., blamed President Bush for supporting the measure, calling it a “desperate tactic to divide Americans in an attempt to salvage his faltering re-election.”
Since the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress to propose an amendment, Senate proponents of the measure need 67 votes, a number they seemed unlikely to muster, at least this year. So their pushing it late in the congressional session to force Democrats to vote on it was more politics than a sincere attempt at passing it, Democrats said.
Related story
A guide to the marriage furor
What brought this drama to a head?
Last November, a four-justice majority of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declared same-sex marriage legal in that state.
The judges relied partly on last summer’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence vs. Texas, which provides the basis for extending a constitutional right to same-sex marriage to the other 49 states.
Supreme Court and marriage
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the five-justice majority, declared in Lawrence vs. Texas that the Constitution demands respect “for the autonomy of the person” in making choices about marriage, family relationships and child rearing.
“Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do,” Kennedy declared.
Lawrence vs. Texas did not explicitly give same-sex marriages constitutional protection, but it laid the foundation for the Supreme Court to do so.
Opponents of the Allard amendment say it is unnecessary because the Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by President Clinton in 1996, lets states refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Kerry voted against DOMA.
Bush in his weekly radio address Saturday said, “An activist court that strikes down traditional marriage would have little problem striking down the Defense of Marriage Act. Overreaching judges could declare that all marriages recognized in Massachusetts or San Francisco (must) be recognized as marriages everywhere else.”
Urging Congress to act, he said, “When judges insist on imposing their arbitrary will on the people, the only alternative left to the people is an amendment to the Constitution — the only law a court cannot overturn.”
Not aimed at private behavior
Campaigning Friday in Kutztown, Pa., Bush said he did not aim to control private sexual behavior. “What they do in the privacy of their house, consenting adults should be able to do,” he said. “This is America. It's a free society. But it doesn't mean we have to redefine traditional marriage.”
But Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, argues that such a redefinition isn’t imminent.
“Most states, including Maine, have passed laws declaring that they will not recognize same-sex marriages, regardless of where they occurred,” Collins said. “I support the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which protects the traditional right of states to determine for themselves what constitutes marriage. ... As long as this law is on the books, I see no need for a Constitutional Amendment."
How long DOMA remains on the books is the crux of this debate.
Some scholars read Lawrence vs. Texas as creating a basis for declaring same-sex marriage a right guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
One thing seems certain: If same-sex marriage is to be made legal across the nation, it will happen by court rulings and not by legislation. Thirty-eight states have laws or state constitutional provisions that ban marriage between same-sex couples.
The marriage debate occurs in a presidential election year, only adding to the heat of this controversy.
Kerry accuses Bush
“The country is polarized because we have a president who is polarizing. I mean, look at what he did the other day with a constitutional amendment,” Kerry said in February when Bush endorsed a constitutional amendment to define marriage. “He's trying to divide America. You know, this is a president who always tries to create a cultural war and seek the lowest common denominator of American politics.”
His fellow Massachusetts senator, Ted Kennedy, said Republicans are using the issue “solely for partisan advantage.”
But if Frist is unable to win the cloture vote and proceed to vote on the Allard amendment itself, then the Republicans would gain less of an advantage, because there would be no clear-cut record of how senators voted on the substantive issue.
SLIDE SHOW
Launch
• Gay marriage
The rise of same-sex weddings has fueled a political and social debate across the country. Click "Launch" to see images surrounding the issue.
The 17 Republican co-sponsors of the Allard amendment come from the Mountain West and the South, with the exception of Sen. Peter Fitzgerald of Illinois, who is retiring from the Senate this year, and Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania.
The one Democratic co-sponsor, Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia, has endorsed Bush’s re-election and will speak at the Republican National Convention.
The South, the Northern Plains states and the Mountain West, probably the most socially conservative parts of the United States, are where Bush ran strongest in 2000 and where Kerry will have the hardest time winning electoral votes.
The issue is playing a role in one of the tightest Senate races, Daschle’s fight for a fourth term in South Dakota.
Daschle complained that the Allard amendment “has nothing to do with real interest in thoughtful consideration of whether the Constitution should be amended.”
His South Dakota GOP adversary, former Rep. John Thune, began airing the first ad of his campaign Friday, a radio spot in support of the amendment.
"Extremist groups in Washington, politicians, even judges... have made it clear that they are willing to run over any state law defining marriage," Thune says in the ad. "They’ve done it in Massachusetts and they can do it here."
Cara Morris, a spokeswoman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, called Thune's ad "bizarre" and asked, "Is this what his polling shows is the most important issue to South Dakota voters?"
Thune campaign manager Dick Wadhams fired back, calling Daschle "out of step" with South Dakota voters and saying he was "terrified" of the marriage issue.
© 2004 MSNBC Interactive
YES YES YES YES YES!YES YES YES YES YES
! YES YES YES YES YES YES
Senate leaders unable to agree on procedure
Senate Majority Leader Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., says the American people need to know where their senators stand on marriage.
By Tom Curry
National affairs writer
MSNBC
Updated: 10:21 a.m. ET July 13, 2004
WASHINGTON - Senate Democrats on Tuesday appeared headed toward a tactical victory over the hot-button issue of gay marriage.
advertisement
Click Here!
What seemed likely Monday — an up-or-down Senate vote on a proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage as only "the union of a man and a woman" — appeared very doubtful a day later as Republican and Democratic leaders were unable to agree on a procedure for a vote.
Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has scheduled a Wednesday vote on cloture, a procedural move that would limit debate on the topic and allow the Senate to proceed to voting on the proposed amendment itself.
Senators who who want to avoid casting election-year votes on the amendment, one way or the other, will vote against cloture and it seems unlikely that Frist will be able to muster the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture and allow a vote on the amendment.
That will let Democrats who didn't want to cast a vote on the question of whether marriage should be limited to heterosexual couples breathing easier.
The Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry, had said that he and his running mate, Sen. John Edwards, would return to the Senate from campaigning to vote against the amendment. But since it now appears there will be no vote, Kerry and Edwards will not need to show up.
Definition of marriage
The proposed amendment, sponsored by Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., declares, “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.”
On Monday, some Republicans were preparing to offer an alternative that would include only the first sentence of Allard's amendment, dropping the second. This alternative would seem to open the way to states permitting and authorizing civil unions which would provide many of the benefits of marriage.
Do you think there should be a constitutional amendment that bans gay marriage?
Yes
No
Vote to see results
Tune in to MSNBC for discussions on this question throughout the day and to hear some of your e-mails on air.
But Frist and Senate Minority Leader Sen. Tom Daschle were unable to strike a deal on how to permit a vote both on the Allard amendment and on the alternative version.
Allard's opponents say there is no need to amend the Constitution since there’s no likelihood that same-sex marriage will spread beyond Massachusetts, the only state where it is now legal.
In their view, the Allard amendment is a divisive election-year gambit. Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., blamed President Bush for supporting the measure, calling it a “desperate tactic to divide Americans in an attempt to salvage his faltering re-election.”
Since the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress to propose an amendment, Senate proponents of the measure need 67 votes, a number they seemed unlikely to muster, at least this year. So their pushing it late in the congressional session to force Democrats to vote on it was more politics than a sincere attempt at passing it, Democrats said.
Related story
A guide to the marriage furor
What brought this drama to a head?
Last November, a four-justice majority of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declared same-sex marriage legal in that state.
The judges relied partly on last summer’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence vs. Texas, which provides the basis for extending a constitutional right to same-sex marriage to the other 49 states.
Supreme Court and marriage
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the five-justice majority, declared in Lawrence vs. Texas that the Constitution demands respect “for the autonomy of the person” in making choices about marriage, family relationships and child rearing.
“Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do,” Kennedy declared.
Lawrence vs. Texas did not explicitly give same-sex marriages constitutional protection, but it laid the foundation for the Supreme Court to do so.
Opponents of the Allard amendment say it is unnecessary because the Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by President Clinton in 1996, lets states refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Kerry voted against DOMA.
Bush in his weekly radio address Saturday said, “An activist court that strikes down traditional marriage would have little problem striking down the Defense of Marriage Act. Overreaching judges could declare that all marriages recognized in Massachusetts or San Francisco (must) be recognized as marriages everywhere else.”
Urging Congress to act, he said, “When judges insist on imposing their arbitrary will on the people, the only alternative left to the people is an amendment to the Constitution — the only law a court cannot overturn.”
Not aimed at private behavior
Campaigning Friday in Kutztown, Pa., Bush said he did not aim to control private sexual behavior. “What they do in the privacy of their house, consenting adults should be able to do,” he said. “This is America. It's a free society. But it doesn't mean we have to redefine traditional marriage.”
But Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, argues that such a redefinition isn’t imminent.
“Most states, including Maine, have passed laws declaring that they will not recognize same-sex marriages, regardless of where they occurred,” Collins said. “I support the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which protects the traditional right of states to determine for themselves what constitutes marriage. ... As long as this law is on the books, I see no need for a Constitutional Amendment."
How long DOMA remains on the books is the crux of this debate.
Some scholars read Lawrence vs. Texas as creating a basis for declaring same-sex marriage a right guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
One thing seems certain: If same-sex marriage is to be made legal across the nation, it will happen by court rulings and not by legislation. Thirty-eight states have laws or state constitutional provisions that ban marriage between same-sex couples.
The marriage debate occurs in a presidential election year, only adding to the heat of this controversy.
Kerry accuses Bush
“The country is polarized because we have a president who is polarizing. I mean, look at what he did the other day with a constitutional amendment,” Kerry said in February when Bush endorsed a constitutional amendment to define marriage. “He's trying to divide America. You know, this is a president who always tries to create a cultural war and seek the lowest common denominator of American politics.”
His fellow Massachusetts senator, Ted Kennedy, said Republicans are using the issue “solely for partisan advantage.”
But if Frist is unable to win the cloture vote and proceed to vote on the Allard amendment itself, then the Republicans would gain less of an advantage, because there would be no clear-cut record of how senators voted on the substantive issue.
SLIDE SHOW
Launch
• Gay marriage
The rise of same-sex weddings has fueled a political and social debate across the country. Click "Launch" to see images surrounding the issue.
The 17 Republican co-sponsors of the Allard amendment come from the Mountain West and the South, with the exception of Sen. Peter Fitzgerald of Illinois, who is retiring from the Senate this year, and Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania.
The one Democratic co-sponsor, Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia, has endorsed Bush’s re-election and will speak at the Republican National Convention.
The South, the Northern Plains states and the Mountain West, probably the most socially conservative parts of the United States, are where Bush ran strongest in 2000 and where Kerry will have the hardest time winning electoral votes.
The issue is playing a role in one of the tightest Senate races, Daschle’s fight for a fourth term in South Dakota.
Daschle complained that the Allard amendment “has nothing to do with real interest in thoughtful consideration of whether the Constitution should be amended.”
His South Dakota GOP adversary, former Rep. John Thune, began airing the first ad of his campaign Friday, a radio spot in support of the amendment.
"Extremist groups in Washington, politicians, even judges... have made it clear that they are willing to run over any state law defining marriage," Thune says in the ad. "They’ve done it in Massachusetts and they can do it here."
Cara Morris, a spokeswoman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, called Thune's ad "bizarre" and asked, "Is this what his polling shows is the most important issue to South Dakota voters?"
Thune campaign manager Dick Wadhams fired back, calling Daschle "out of step" with South Dakota voters and saying he was "terrified" of the marriage issue.
© 2004 MSNBC Interactive
YES YES YES YES YES!YES YES YES YES YES
! YES YES YES YES YES YES
It sucks big time -- why have those bloody stupid government decide for us??? Where's our freedom??? :madfawk: