Gay Marriage Ban Amendment FAILS.
 

Soucre: CSPAN (Live)

Yes - 48
No - 50

60 votes were needed to continue debating the issue. Ban supporters couldn't even manage this.


That's pretty damn close. I'm glad it was thrown out. It was a ridiculous proposal in the first place. Suck it down haters. I don't see an appeal succeeding in the future.

Anyone have access to a voting list on this?

Here's a related article: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ay_marriage_20

I know McCain was in the NO column.
This vote was pure wedge politics anyway. The republicans will use it, in regions where it is effective, to show that democrats are with the godless heathens to allow the sodomites to rule the world.

*yawn

Democrats that voted Yes:
Byrd (WV)
Nelson (NE)
Miller (GA) ...Not really a democrat though...

Republicans that voted No:

McCain (AZ)
Sununu (NH)
Nighthorse Campbell (CO)
Collins (ME)
Snowe (ME)
Chafee (RI)

here is the link for the voting

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=2&vote=00155


edit...changed the way i posted the info

Hooray, both my jackass moron homophobic senators voted for this thing! I can't wait to try and vote you out, Specter. Santorum -- your time will come.

Hmm, all the more reason to get Specter out of there now. After his tight race with Toomey, Bush came to his rescue and saved him from a primary defeat. Specter was previously on record to oppose all of this. Now he votes for it. He'll be a Bush mouthpiece from now on. Nothing more than that. A puppet.

Good, I don't have to be angry with my Senators. Thanks for the list ShaniFaye.

Also, I can't help but chuckle every time I hear the name Santorum, what with its new definition.

I'm glad both of my senators voted no but it was still way to close.

It is sad that we are still having problems with government sanctioned discrimination.

Two consenting adults should be able to love eachother freely. Just because people are different doesn't make them wrong.

If government officials really feel that marriage needs to be between a man and a woman based on relegious text then they need to remove marriage from the government completly. Let marriage be a religous thing only and there is nothing in the government relating to it no joint taxes ect.

Well correction there should be one law in the books that says no one can be discriminated agaisnt based on being or not being married that way private orginizations don't discriminate.

I'll be glad in 20 years when there is an amendment to the constitution that says gays deserve equal rights.

Kerry and Edwards lucked out. Their Not Voting doesn't matter for this issue; but their attendance records are appalling.

Yet again wonderwench comes to bash the two Democrat candidats when this thread has little to do with it.

Please, I rarely say this type of stuff to other members but this type of stuff makes it hard to take what is said seriously.

I don't know that I would classify Nelson as a Democrat, either. The definition of a Nebraska Democrat is a Republican that still holds legal title to his soul.

*sigh* My Senators just voted the wishes of their constituency...unfortunately. I no longer have the numbers, but Nebraska was overwhelmingly in favor of this little piece of legalized hate.

good.

this means that am please about something political.
its been a while.

good.

Oh Georgie, Georgie, Georgie. Being Governor of Ohio and mayor of Cleveland, you should know the second largest per-capita gay city in the US is Cleveland's own suburb of Lakewood.

You should know Ohio has one of the largest gay populations in the nation and you still voted yes.

Georgie did Bush scare you when he threatened to show you as a liberal GOP (when you opposed his tax cuts) and you felt that would lose your election?

Have you learnt nothing about how Ohio views your mouthpiece puppet governor Taft?

Oh, Georgie, I liked ya so but your vote to get in people's bedrooms shows me that you are now, not the "moderate" who has his own voice senator we believed you to be.

Georgie, I liked ya, really did, but I'm gonna have to vote you out when your time comes.

Dewine, well he has no backbone and will vote party lines no matter what. Dewine is already toast. But Georgie Boy I liked you, you had such good political soundness.... and now you are just a puppet.

This is an important issue, after all now we have world peace, have cured cancer and aids, eliminated poverty and injuctice issues like this should now become very important.

Word.

Guess the Republicans can finally focus on getting that budget done, huh... (yeah, it's late, AGAIN)

I don't know what bothers me more.
That so many arre so against gay marriage so deeply( I would think it would be more of a non issue), or that they actualyl want to put discrimination into the Constitution?

From what I can recall, the only time that a constitutional amendment has been used to remove rights was the 18th amendment, and we know how well that one worked out.

This issue keeps a little heat off the war and jobs going overseas, now, doesn't it?

It also helps GOP in the Bible Belt and with Fundamentalist Religious Right groups.

So overall, wasting a little time on this one issue helps the GOP more than hurts them.... at least in their eyes.

It really says something about the nature of this board that nobody has bashed this decision. Kudos to us all!

Incedentally, Sen. Reid (D-NV) is Mormon, and he still voted against it on the grounds that the Constitution should not be used to TAKE AWAY people's rights. Hooray for Sierra Harry!

redlemon - It could be argued that Amendment XXII removed the right of the president to hold more than two terms in office.

Yeah, there are a couple that refer to who is eligible for various government positions. I kinda glossed over those intentionally.

I'm glad we're trying to paint the picture for young kids growing up in a gay household that their parents aren't good enough.

Scarily enough, that's exactly what these people who say YES are saying.

And Kerry and Edwards would have been there had the vote been a little closer, alas, sanity prevailed at least for another day.

This rhetoric of "it'll bring down the nation!" "it'll destroy the family!" wow, really? has it?

These people just want to keep the gay population down and they hope by "banning" it, it'll just go away. Wrong. And it hopefully gives these people a good rallying cry.

/married, straight, white southerner with gay friends who doesn't want to keep his fellow human beings down.

clockworkgreen -- it doesn't matter how close the vote was -- they needed 60 yea votes. Since Kerry and Edwards would have voted against moving the vote right to the floor, their lack of presence was irrelevant. In fact, not voting and voting nay were exactly the same thing.

Also, DC is not the south! :)

Excellent! I love learning new words. So, let's see, could we say this legislation is a load of santorum?

I see good old Nelson didn't let us progressives down, yet again.

Nebraska pushed through our own little ballot issue for this a couple of years ago. I knew it would pass, but it was something like 80% in favor. My jaw dropped. Now you see these Marriage = Man + Woman bumper stickers around. I see that and want to key the car so bad!

And speaking of not voting, Nelson quietly ducked out of the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship vote last time. Way to represent!

God (of your choice) Bless America, the land of the Free.

word...

I work at a legislative office here in Tucson and have been taking calls all week regarding this topic. People in this area, Tucson, seem to be very against this proposed amendment. I wasn't surprised at all that McCain and Kyl voted that way.

Well, any good old-fashioned states-rights Republican would be against this measure, because it usurps the power of the states to set their own guidelines for marriage, which they traditionally have. 38 states already legally define marriage as between a man and a woman only. The rest can if they want to.

For the same reason, I'm also upset with the periodic attempts at the federal level to introduce a national bankruptcy law. Each state already has its own bankruptcy laws, but the proposed federal ones have been much more forgiving to the banking and credit industries, who have been pouring money into the pocket of politicians on both sides of the aisle. So, through corruption, the federal government again attempts to ursurp the powers allocated to the states.

As for the proposed federal gay marriage ban, some conservatives were also opposed because vague language in the bill could also be read to ban gay civil unions of any kind. And a lot of people who oppose gay marriage don't really have a problem with civil unions.

The problem is the full faith and credit clause in the Bill of Rights. One state making gay marriage legal requires other states to recognize such unions.

Government should just get out of the marriage business altogether, allow for civil unions between any two consenting adults - and leave marriage to religions.

I honestly am somewhat perturbed by Kerry and Edward's failure to attend this vote. I'm not trying to threadjack here, but isn't this issue important enough? I think saying no to stupid government interferences is extremely important, and I would have preferred that they voice that.

Again, not trying to threadjack. Just how important is this issue in terms of political and social schemes?

Kerry and Edward's attendance is irrelevant. They are campaigning right now. Their vote was not needed.

they didn't show up for good reason. there was a required 60 votes for this to pass, not a % of those attending. by not showing up, they did not have to go on record as being against it, which is something that bush would like. if they go on record against it, then it can be used to try to sway the conservative/moderate crowd away from the dems. this way, their no-show works as a no, without actually doing it.

Full faith and credit has been taken care of by the "Defense of Marriage" Act (those are my irony quotes). Which is why Virginia can feel free to enact anti-gay rights laws to its hearts content. *sigh*

Actually, since Full Faith and Credit is in the constitution and "Defense of Marriage" is a mere law, DOMA is unconstitutional and the first case where they start to clash DOMA will be rulled null. Now with Mass legalized Gay marriage all states where a gay married couple decieds to live in will have to recognize the union as the same as a man and woman. Constitution trumps all and America will be better for it.

This goes to a different issue, but it sits in the same vein. And that makes it relevant here. Why waste time on this when there are issues that are actually important to our safety and security?
/Why this vote is retarded and all who voted for cloture should be tossed on their asses. It was a worthless vote on something that would be of absolutely no benefit to any american. 48 US Senators voted yesterday to keep America in danger.
Stop wasting my tax dollars and do your goddamned jobs. Fuckers. Not one ounce of respect for any of them.

Al Sharpton really impressed me in the Dem. debates. Not saying I would vote for him, but here's what he had to say regarding the Constitutional ban on gay marriage:

[Paraphrasing] All you fools trying to pass this off as an "issue for the states" are missing the boat. The right to marry is a Civil Right! You can't let states decide who has civil rights and who doesn't. Isn't that why we fought the Civil War?

lol You go Reverand Al.

Exactly, he brought up the role the Civil Rights Act has in all of this. In addition to the Full Faith and Credit Clause (ie. if you have a drivers license in Cali, you can drive in Vermont too.)

There is:
The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment (Civil Rights Act) of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights.

So, a Hate Amendment would have to not only amend the Full Faith and Credit Clause, but also the Civil Rights Act, before it would be consititutional.
There's no chance in hell of Congress ever actually CHANGING an amendment that is already there, let alone two.

Face it, Gay Marriage is coming and there is nothing that mess of Santorums can do about it.

Why two?

Many Mormons would use the exact arguments used by gay activists to promote their lifestyle choice.

I don't know *why* two, but I imagine tax purposes and immigration exploits would be thrown in as reasons.

Also, I just want to be totally clear on this: Wouldn't equal protection simply mean that other states have to recognize the two as being married, but could still ban any gay marriages within the state? To use Superbelt's example, you can be licensed in Cali and drive in Vermont, but Vermont can deny you a license if you don't already have one and try to get it there.