posted
Russian government blatantly anti-Jewish... Reporter in Poland about to be jailed for critizising the Pope...
And now, again, here in the land of the free:
quote:Supporters to push same-sex marriage ban Monday, January 24, 2005 Posted: 6:29 PM EST (2329 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate supporters of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage said Monday they intend to press for passage in the new Congress, brushing aside mixed signals from the White House on the issue's importance at the start of President Bush's second term.
"Who's to say whether we have enough votes or not," said Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colorado, noting that the new two-year Congress has just begun.
He said he expects GOP leaders to call for a vote before the 2006 elections and added, "I think it would be foolhardy to back off when we've got a good head of steam coming out of the election." The amendment fell far short of passage a year ago.
The amendment states that marriage "shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman," adding that no state would be required to give legal recognition to same-sex marriages sanctioned by any other state.
Vote counters on both sides of the issue agree that Senate backers of the amendment picked up support in the 2004 elections, and the presence of Sen. John Thune, R-South Dakota at the news conference underscored that. Last fall Thune defeated former Democratic Leader Tom Daschle, who had opposed the amendment.
"There were a lot of races ... where this issue was prominent," Thune said.
Supporters of the amendment mustered only 48 votes last year on a procedural motion needed to keep the proposal alive in the Senate. A two-thirds majority is needed for passage.
Most Democrats signaled their opposition to the measure on the vote, and Bush and others have said it's unlikely there will be much of a change in senatorial sentiment unless there is a court ruling requiring one state to recognize same-sex marriages performed in another.
But Allard said he thought some opponents might reconsider more quickly in the wake of last fall's elections. "I know the Democrats are re-evaluating their position on a number of social issues, and I'll bet this is one of those issues," he said.
There was no immediate evidence of a switch among opponents, though. "The Democratic Party is still opposed to this amendment," said outgoing party chairman Terry McAuliffe. "It is wrong to write discrimination into the U.S. Constitution and it is shameful for Washington Republicans to attack gay and lesbian families for purely political reasons."
In addition to the impact the issue had in congressional campaigns, voters in 13 states approved ballot initiatives last year that were backed by gay marriage opponents.
Bush pushed hard for a vote in both houses of Congress on the amendment during last year's election campaign. This year, he said in a Washington Post interview he will not lobby the Senate to pass the amendment, adding there are not enough supporters to approve the measure. When social conservatives complained, White House communications director Dan Bartlett said Bush was talking about the "legislative reality," and will continue to push for the ban.
Additionally, White House strategist Karl Rove did not mention the issue when he spoke to GOP lawmakers earlier this winter and laid out the president's top priorities.
Nor did the GOP leadership include the measure on its list of top 10 legislative priorities for the next two years, an agenda topped by Bush's call for landmark Social Security legislation and an overhaul of the tax code. Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, said the measure was omitted because it is an amendment rather than traditional legislation, and said he hoped it would pass.
quote:WASHINGTON — The Human Rights Campaign denounced today’s reintroduction of an amendment that would deny marriage to same-sex couples, emphasizing how out-of-touch Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo.; his co-sponsors; President Bush and the extreme right wing are with the American public on the issue of writing discrimination into the Constitution.
“The American people value freedom, not discrimination,” said HRC Political Director Winnie Stachelberg. “Americans want laws that ensure the safety and stability of their neighbors, and that’s what our policymakers should be focused on. Pushing an amendment that would deny protections to millions of Americans is completely out-of-step with our nation’s values.”
According to an article in The Rocky Mountain News, Allard today plans to reintroduce the so-called Marriage Protection Amendment, which would deny marriage to same-sex couples and deny the ability to provide any protections to same-sex couples, such as domestic partnerships and civil unions.
In a Jan. 16 interview with The Washington Post, President Bush acknowledged the lack of congressional support for the amendment and told reporters he “will not press senators to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.” After being pressured by the extreme right wing, the administration backtracked, declaring they would expend political capital to push the discriminatory amendment, despite knowing they lack the votes.
The amendment failed in both the House and Senate last year, by a 227-186 margin in the House in September and a 48-50 vote in the Senate in July.
“Sixty percent of Americans support either marriage or civil unions for same-sex couples,” added Stachelberg. “Same-sex couples are already denied more than 1,100 federal protections that other families take for granted. This amendment would enshrine that discrimination into our nation’s most cherished document of freedom. It would also threaten protections that states have enacted, and on which thousands of American families already rely. It’s wrong. Congress should be spending time protecting Americans, not looking for ways to preserve our peril.”
The Human Rights Campaign is the largest national lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender political organization with members throughout the country. It effectively lobbies Congress, provides campaign support and educates the public to ensure that LGBT Americans can be open, honest and safe at home, at work and in the community.
quote:"It is wrong to write discrimination into the U.S. Constitution and it is shameful for Washington Republicans to attack gay and lesbian families for purely political reasons."
This is absolutely true... These people, like Karl Rove, don't give a damn about gay marriage or families... all they care about is the idea that they can get more power and money feeding on bigotry and ingnorance.
The only good thing (and it's a good thing!) is that it will fail to pass again. They don't have the votes.
[ January 25, 2005, 03:53 AM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which second one darlin'? The quoted sentence? That's from a Democrate in the first article. The second article is from http://www.hrc.org/. As for the vote, this is the second or third time a Congressman/Senator has tried to bring up the vote on changing the Constitution banning gay marriage/unions/etc...
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
AAAhhh.... yes... a Polish reporter has been taken to court because he insulted the Pope in an article. Just heard about it on the BBC.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
While the right-wing Republicans may not really have lost touch too badly with a good number of their base supporters, I think they truly have lost touch with the real meaning of the Constitution.
In 20 years, when today's younger generations take over, the Republicans are going to suffer quite a large blow because they've been building up so much bad karma with tomorrow's voters.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
When did we, as a people, start to even think that we can just simply re-write or add to the Constitution?
It's the ammendment for this, or changing the term limits or allowing foreign-born citizens to run for president. A few years back, it was going to be a ban on burning the flag.
We've been so lucky, so far, that it really does take a lot of work to change the Constitution. Of course, they may work to change that before long, if this keeps up.
And then our Constitution will be as large and byzantine as our books of federal law.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:These people, like Karl Rove, don't give a damn about gay marriage or families... all they care about is the idea that they can get more power and money feeding on bigotry and ingnorance.
I'm afraid this is generally true of all political figures. I'm sure there are exceptions both in terms of causes and of people, but I have really come to believe this is the general rule... and this amendment, last time around, was just one more example.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: When did we, as a people, start to even think that we can just simply re-write or add to the Constitution?
In all fairness, I think we should be able to simply re-write or add to the Constitution. It's an old document, and isn't always applicable. Most of our updates to it have been fairly important.
It's only since we allowed the federal government to have too much power over our daily lives that we've started trying to write that kind of niggling, legalistic control into the Constitution; that's the problem, not the amendment process itself.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
After looking at the proposal I’ve found that this is a definition of marriage act. Not a homosexual marriage ban act. Big difference. You might say they are one in the same. But one defines what marriage is. The other bans a type of marriage. What is wrong with defining what marriage is?
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jay, you're being as disingenuous as the politicians. You can't seriously expect anyone to believe that this "definition" of marriage isn't being forced into law to specifically BAN homosexual marriages.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I think the Republican politicians DO care about this and it's something that bothers me greatly about the Republican party. I think many Democrats would vote for this admendment if they thought they could get away with it and I think many of them will feel justified in doing so based on the last election.
Don't forget, VERY liberal states have passed anti-gay marriage legislation. California and Hawai'i SPRING to mind. If this amendment makes it through congress it's going to have clear sailing to get 35 states. And it will take another 50-100 years to get it repealed, if it ever gets repealed. Not in my lifetime.
Maybe the dems will be able to filibuster this for forever. Some dems might feel they have to vote for this to get re-elected, but if they filibuster they won't HAVE to vote. This will be a real test of the democrats commitment to gay rights. One they failed in '96(?) when Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Defining marriage is a good thing. That way you can’t go marry sixty people so they could all be on your insurance. You also couldn’t marry your dog. It is a matter of states rights since marriages cross state lines and other states usually have to recognize other states marriages. Since the definition of marriage is being abused it could use defining. What’s wrong with civil unions or roommates? Why does the religious act of marriage have to be defamed? But now a days it doesn’t seem like marriage mean much with the way divorce rates are.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
You know, just because this is a common phrase used in these discussions doesn't make it any more acceptable or make anyone employing it less of a bigot.
If you're really worried about people marrying 60 other people or marrying their dog, then just define marriage as a union between 2 PEOPLE.
Roomates and civil unions do not afford the rights (hospital visitation etc) that 'marriage' does.
The Government should not be defining marriage. They should define a union in which two people allow certain rights to each other. They can call this whatever they want... 'super special friendship' for all I care, but I think 'civil union' works well. Marriage can be left to be defined by churches who choose to do so, and they don't all have to define it the same way.
If you get hitched in a non-religious ceromony, you have a civil union. If you get hitched in the church you are married in that church, and you also have a civil union.
Couples rights and taxes etc are based on Civil unions, and states are required to recognize unions from other states.
quote: It's a religious act. Congress has no authority to define it in the first place.
Please quote to me where this is stated in the Constitution. The current way of defining separation of church and state is so wrong from how the founding fathers meant it to be. First of separation of church and state isn’t in the Constitution. It’s a court opinion.
The 1st amendment says:
quote: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This was meant so the government couldn’t say that such and such is the state religion. Not so we couldn’t make laws that define a legal term that we use everywhere from taxes to benefits to morals.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The thought of the government messing with the Constitution scares me. [Angst]
It was because the government messed with the constitution that we ended up with the Bill of Rights in the first place.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Adam, I think it's violative of the spirit of the First Amendment, but almost certianly not violative of the actual prohibitions on government actions embodied therein. If SCOTUS ever requires gay marriage, it will be under the EP clause of the 14th.
It's just as dangerous to consider unacceptable laws based (edit: solely) on their coinciding with a particular religious belief as it is to propose laws solely because of their coinciding with a particular religious belief.
While I steadfastly believe religious beliefs can legitimately inform support or opposition to laws, especially on the values decision that must inform all legislation, there must be secular reasoning underlying such support and opposition as well.
quote:It's just as dangerous to consider unacceptable laws based on their coinciding with a particular religious belief as it is to propose laws solely because of their coinciding with a particular religious belief.
posted
Sure, but wouldn't it be better not to have a law built on the basis on one religion, in which the beliefs of that religion are forced upon people who don't believe in them? Particularly the law violates the rights of the non-believers rather than the rights of the believers? I mean, we wouldn't want to make a national law defining meat as only non-pork animal flesh, right?
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who, pray tell, would be on the losing end if people were allowed to add 60 or 70 people to their insurance policies?
Surely we're not suggesting that this would somehow decrease insurance company profits to the point where we'd have to bail them out...
Also, I think the "slippery slope" stuff is also a smoke screen. People marrying their dogs is not a reason to restrictively define marriage.
At the very least, this ammendment should clarify what other arrangements are to be made legally indistiguishable from marriage for the purposes of benefits and privileges. If it is going to be "civil unions" then let's write that into the Constitution while we're at it.
This so called "Defense of Marriage" is not about clarifying anything. It's about throwing a bone to selected religious conservative groups who have thrown their weight behind the GOP.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
I try not to edit unless the typo is really egregious, or unless there are no other posts and I have something else I want to add.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know I'm a little late getting in here, but I don't think anyone's posted this yet. HRC Action Center has an e-mailer set up so that you can easily edit a form letter and they will send it to your senators for you.
Some of you may be interested in doing so.
Posts: 3214 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The vast majority of rhetoric in favor of a constitutional ban on gay marriage is religious. Not every religion has problems with gay marriage, so if Congress were to ban it, they would be making a clear preference for a particular religion. Therefore, such an amendment can be opposed on First Amendment grounds.
Not if by opposition you mean legal opposition in court. It just doesn't work that way.
The reproductive aspects of marriage alone probably provide sufficient government interest. What you propose is an absolutely dangerous precedent. The mere act of categorizing reasons as "religious" or "secular" is too frought with difficulty to provide reasonable guidance to a court, as is the difficulty with determining the "reasons" for legislation.
You're missing the point. By defining marriage--a religious practice by nature--the federal government is lending its support to certain religious groups, while excluding others. While this isn't the establishment of a state religion, it's giving favor to one set of spiritual beliefs over another. This is one of those dangerous slippery slopes. BTW--why don't we put some salt on those slopes? It would save everyone a lot of grief.
I'm politically opposed to the amendment because it abridges states' rights in a huge way. It's insulting to think that the federal government knows what's best for my state and my neighbors. What arrogance.
[full_disclosure] I'm also morally opposed to the amendment, but I think that's somewhat secondary to my politics.
Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
True, and in that context I don't really have a disagreement with it. I think you're right that religion is driving this far more than most other motives, although I think there are more secular arguments than you acknowledge.
Edit: The reason I pointed it out is because there are people who don't want to limit the principal as you have.
But I'm still against the amendment and the unequal access.
quote: Why does the religious act of marriage have to be defamed?
Allowing gay marriage does not require any religious group to perform marriages for gay couples. I fully support any groups right to choose not to. But that does not mean allowing judges, and those clerics who choose to, to bless gay marriages defames the religious act of others. Marriage is a legal contract, one every couple should have the right to.
Posts: 1021 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, I often send edited form letters to my representatives on environmental issues, through the World Wildlife Fund. I almost always get a response.
Yes, in general, I'd say it's better to write and mail your own letter. But sending a form letter or an edited form letter is better than not saying anything at all. I was just offering an option to people who might want to actually contact their representatives but aren't sure how, or don't have a lot of time.
Posts: 3214 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have heard numerous times the argument that gay marriage threatens marriage, but then I never see it explained. Usually someone asks "how does two men/two women getting married threaten heterosexual marriage?" And then there is no response to the question.
Anyone care to explain the reasoning there?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Part of the reasoning is that it weakens the institute of marriage. Having gay marriage (among other arrangements) legally recognized can be viewed as an endorsement by society, giving the message of "Traditional marriage is no more valid/important than [insert other social arrangement]."
posted
Technically the 14th amendment won't protect anyone from a new constitutional amendment. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;" So Federal law wouldn't apply I don't think.
I don't think that amendments are bad, if the constitution were so perfect, we wouldn't have needed to amend it 27 times to date. But I'll never go along with a law that limits the rights of other, whether I agree with the morality of it or not.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Huh. So both sides are upset at the idea of the government endorsing something that they feel shouldn't be endorsed. Stamp of approval on same-sex marriage being equal to opposite-sex, as opposed to stamp of approval on certain religious beliefs. Is that right?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Technically the 14th amendment won't protect anyone from a new constitutional amendment. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;" So Federal law wouldn't apply I don't think.
Technically, no amendment will protect ANYONE from a new constitutional amendment. The only part of the Constitution that the normal amendment process cannot supercede is the number of Senators per state.
This is why I couched my reference to the 14th amendment this way: "If SCOTUS ever requires gay marriage, it will be under the EP clause of the 14th."
Adam's argument about the 1st Amendment speaks to whether the law is an establishment of religion, not whether the 1st Amendment would bar passage, and it is in this context which I answered him.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
