| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Senate rejects gay marriage ban | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 7 2006, 08:07 AM (2,299 Views) | |
| The 89th Key | Jun 7 2006, 08:07 AM Post #1 |
|
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/07/D8I3EDT00.html The Senate on Wednesday rejected a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, but supporters said new votes for the measure represent progress that gives conservative Republicans reason to vote on Election Day. The 49-48 vote fell 11 short of the 60 required to send the matter for an up-or-down tally by the full Senate. The amendment's failure was no surprise, but supporters said the vote reflected growing support among senators and Americans. "We're building votes," said Sen. David Vitter, R-La., who is among supporters of the ban who were not in the Senate when the amendment was last voted on in 2004. "That's often what's required over several years to get there, particularly to a two-thirds vote." A majority of Americans define marriage as a union of a man and a woman, as the proposed amendment does, according to a poll out this week by ABC News. But an equal majority opposes amending the Constitution on this issue, the poll found. "Most Americans are not yet convinced that their elected representatives or the judiciary are likely to expand decisively the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a possible presidential candidate in 2008. He told the Senate on Tuesday he does not support the amendment. The measure's defeat in the Senate is by no means its last stand, said its supporters. "I do not believe the sponsors are going to fall back and cry about it," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "I think they are going to keep bringing it up." The House plans a redux next month, said Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. "This is an issue that is of significant importance to many Americans," Boehner told reporters. "We have significant numbers of our members who want a vote on this, so we are going to have a vote." The defeat came despite daily appeals for passage by President Bush, whose standing is troubled by sagging poll numbers and a dissatisfied conservative base. The Vatican also added muscle to the argument Tuesday, naming gay marriage as one of the factors threatening the traditional family as never before. Democrats, all of whom except Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska oppose the amendment, said the debate was a divisive political ploy. "The Republican leadership is asking us to spend time writing bigotry into the Constitution," said Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, which legalized gay marriage in 2003. "A vote for it is a vote against civil unions, against domestic partnership, against all other efforts for states to treat gays and lesbians fairly under the law." In response, Hatch fumed: "Does he really want to suggest that over half of the United States Senate is a crew of bigots?" Forty-five of the 50 states have acted to define traditional marriage in ways that would ban same-sex marriage _ 19 with constitutional amendments and 26 with statutes. The amendment would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages. To become law, it would need two-thirds support in the Senate and House, and then would have to be ratified by at least 38 state legislatures. The Senate tally Wednesday put the ban 18 votes short of the 67 required for approval of a constitutional amendment. |
![]() |
|
| kenny | Jun 7 2006, 08:08 AM Post #2 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
|
![]() |
|
| Bernard | Jun 7 2006, 02:43 PM Post #3 |
|
Senior Carp
|
New votes? Progress? Yeah right. There was 1 more vote for the measure this time around yet there are more republicans in the Senate than the last time. Wishful thinking. And if the Democrats make strides this fall the issue will deservedly die.
Yes indeed. |
![]() |
|
| Nina | Jun 7 2006, 02:48 PM Post #4 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Blatant pandering. I think the issue may backfire. As much as part of the Republican constituency may support a constitutional ban, I think they also resent being manipulated so shamelessly. |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jun 7 2006, 02:52 PM Post #5 |
|
Manipulated? How so? If an issue comes up you are adamant about, and you want to vote on it...how is that being manipulated? |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Jun 7 2006, 03:06 PM Post #6 |
|
MAMIL
|
A well-thought out take on it, IMO: Addicted to words? The Rose Garden of the White House is particularly alluring in late spring. The flowers are in bloom and the air is sweetly scented. It is, you might say, an ideal venue from which to defend the institution of marriage and welcome a group of spiritual leaders who pride themselves on sniffing out the difference between incense and sulphur. President Bush speaks at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building Not the fragrance of the Rose Garden... So, everyone who had flocked to hear the president propose a constitutional amendment on banning same-sex marriage was a little disappointed to discover that the venue had been changed to a rather nondescript briefing room on the fourth floor of the drab Executive Office Building next to the White House. Trusting souls pointed to dark clouds billowing on the horizon. But others immediately jumped to conspiracy theories. The White House had read the weekend papers. They were alarmed by editorials suggesting that the Constitutional ban was being dusted off and warmed up as a cynical ploy to "re-energise" the most feverish ranks of the Republican Party, as if social conservatives are like motorised bunnies with new sets of batteries, pointed in the direction of the mid term polls. Moreover the White House had briefed reporters that the president would not work the phones to senators and congressmen in an effort to persuade them to support the amendment and thus forge the necessary two-thirds majorities in the House and the Senate. The founding fathers had set the bar to re-writing the hallowed Constitution suitably high. The president's amendment is once again destined to fail. None of this seemed to depress the rabbis, monks, priests and evangelical bigwigs who had gathered in room 450 of the Executive Office Building. They interrupted the president's short speech with enthusiastic applause and like teenagers at a pop concert many brandished sleek mobile phones to snap grainy mementoes of their hero. Raised expectations Even the affable Dr James Dobson, the leader of Focus on the Family, an organisation that is to Christian family values what Toyota is to family cars, was surprisingly hopeful. George Bush's principal problem is not that he can't articulate what's on his mind, it's that he sometimes says it all too well "We won't succeed," he told me, "but we are getting closer every time and I will continue this fight (to ban same-sex marriage) until the last breath has left my body!" Dr Dobson and the other guests were all sporting saucer-sized badges declaring "Marriage= one man + one woman", as if there were still any lingering doubts about their nuptial arithmetic. "Aren't you disappointed that the president won't be following up his rhetoric with phone calls to Capitol Hill?" I asked. "Look, let's be realistic," he said. "Even my wife doesn't do everything I want her to do!" Other evangelical leaders I spoke to were less tolerant of the president's attention-deficit disorder. One of God's most powerful lobbyists in the Beltway told me that the president's speech could make him look at best weak and at worst cynical. It would raise expectations that are doomed to fail. Audience member wears a badge supporting a ban on gay marriages The message from opponents of same-sex marriages is clear The polls still indicate that the majority of legislators and voters don't want to see the Constitution amended even if they do not favour the notion of Adam marrying Hank and Eve marrying Jean. Some evangelical voters in swing rural counties of swing states like Ohio may have been "energised" by the President's last call for a constitutional ban in 2004 to go out and vote. But the scientific evidence suggests that the link between such an announcement and voting patterns is extremely tenuous. George Bush has much bigger problems within the evangelical community than leading the march against same-sex marriage. Loyal supporters Opinion polls suggest that he has fallen from the grace of a 78% approval rating last year amongst America's born-again Christians to a mere 52%. The reason for this haemorrhage is depressingly familiar: the Iraq War. George Bush had lost the support of the gay community a long time ago. The pressure group Log Cabin Republicans felt betrayed when he launched his first constitutional offensive against gay marriage. Kathy Burke, left, and Tonja Alois of Rotterdam, N.Y, wait outside New York State's highest court The issue of gay marriages is being debated in the courts It was also one of the very few issues on which he parted company with his vice-president, whose daughter Mary is openly lesbian, and with his wife, Laura, who told Fox News bluntly that same-sex marriage should not be used as a campaign tool. This time George Bush also risks upsetting his most loyal supporters on the Christian right, who hate nothing more than a cynical ploy in the service of what they see as a noble cause. In January 2005, he told the Washington Post that the Defence of Marriage Act was already an effective bar to the spread of gay marital union. There is no point in fighting for a constitutional change! So, what's new? Addicted to words As I listened to him I suddenly had my own revelation. George Bush's principal problem is not that he can't articulate what's on his mind. It's that he sometimes says it all too well. (I can only remember one line from that world-class word schmoozer Bill Clinton and it was a disclaimer about Miss Lewinsky which the former president probably wished no one had remembered!) President Bush leaves after delivering remarks on the Marriage Protection Act in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building President Bush: Man of words as much as action But vintage Bush lines like "axis of evil", "our mission is to end tyranny in our world", "America is addicted to oil", and "We are in a conflict between good and evil and America will call evil by its name!" do stick in my mind. They are pithy phrases written for a transformational president, who underpins his policies with his faith. They are crafted by a brilliant team of speech-writers, inspired by the Bible and meticulously approved by the man who has to deliver them. And because they can be remembered they hold up all too well to scrutiny or derision. The "axis of evil" has been turned by the Economist into the "axis of feeble". If America calls evil by its name, what does it call Abu Ghraib or Haditha? If it is addicted to oil what is the addict-in-chief doing to give his voters the cold turkey of recovery? If it is committed to ending tyranny, why is America making friends with Colonel Gaddafi or allowing Egypt to get away with oppression? And if President Bush is committed to defending "marriage as the most important institution in the history of mankind", what is he doing to lower the divorce rate or, for that matter, to bring about a constitutional amendment? In his second term, the Decider (as he recently referred to himself) looks as if he's addicted to words. Not the kind of thing you'd expect from a swashbuckling Texan! |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Steve Miller | Jun 7 2006, 03:08 PM Post #7 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Some do, some don't. |
|
Wag more Bark less | |
![]() |
|
| Steve Miller | Jun 7 2006, 03:13 PM Post #8 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Once again it's apparent that the good Dr. Dobsen should spend a more time focusing on his own family, and less time focusing on mine. |
|
Wag more Bark less | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Jun 7 2006, 03:23 PM Post #9 |
|
MAMIL
|
My wife subscribes to a newsletter from this bloke. I strongly suspect that she does it solely to annoy the hell out of me. If this is the case, it's certainly working. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jun 7 2006, 03:55 PM Post #10 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Why Steve, are you looking to expand to something other than "one man + one woman"? :lol: |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Mark | Jun 7 2006, 03:57 PM Post #11 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
This is good news. |
|
___.___ (_]===* o 0 When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells | |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Jun 7 2006, 05:16 PM Post #12 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
I do. Felt the same way about the Clinton impeachment. |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jun 7 2006, 05:19 PM Post #13 |
|
I really have enormous respect for Dr. James Dobson.
|
![]() |
|
| Steve Miller | Jun 7 2006, 05:33 PM Post #14 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Of course you do - you have no family for him to focus on. |
|
Wag more Bark less | |
![]() |
|
| Steve Miller | Jun 7 2006, 05:34 PM Post #15 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
So now *you* want to focus on my family too?
|
|
Wag more Bark less | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jun 7 2006, 05:36 PM Post #16 |
|
Focus on THE family. Not yours. Not his. THE.
|
![]() |
|
| Steve Miller | Jun 7 2006, 05:39 PM Post #17 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
The only family I care to get involved with is my own, and I'll thank the good Dr. to stay the hell out of it. Looks like he has more than he can say grace over in his own house anyway. :rolleyes: |
|
Wag more Bark less | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jun 7 2006, 05:40 PM Post #18 |
|
So don't listen to what he says. To many families, he's a great resource. His organization helps many families not only stay together, but grow in Christ. |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Jun 7 2006, 05:43 PM Post #19 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
89th, you need a new avatar. I think you like this one too much.
|
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| Steve Miller | Jun 7 2006, 05:44 PM Post #20 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Also to persecute gay people. I don't know where he stands on feminists and the ACLU; I think they're more Falwell's gig. |
|
Wag more Bark less | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jun 7 2006, 05:49 PM Post #21 |
|
Who is persecuting gay people? By voting against same-sex marriage? This has been covered over and over. Close your eyes and pick a random thread....ten bucks says it's on this topic. |
![]() |
|
| LadyElton | Jun 7 2006, 06:52 PM Post #22 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
People like Dobson help many gay people hate themselves and commit suicide. Dobson is no more a doctor than Josef Mengele. |
| Hilary aka LadyElton | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jun 7 2006, 06:54 PM Post #23 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
:lol: No, just curious! |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Steve Miller | Jun 7 2006, 07:45 PM Post #24 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
No time to discuss it now. I need to go though my wife's closet and throw out all of the cotton/poly blends before the neighbors show up to stone her. I need to hurry too - she's still angry after that "sell the daughter in to slavery" incident.
|
|
Wag more Bark less | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jun 7 2006, 08:05 PM Post #25 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Gotta tune in tomorrow -- it sounds better than "Lost". |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |







10:41 PM Jul 12