Senate debate on marriage constitutional amendment

[Faithless]

It's on, and it is something else. Talk about a waste of government money.

Anyway it is interesting how these Senators are debating this stuff so intellectually, despite there negative views against gay marriage.

The Senator from Alabama is trying to put his views in such stately terms, you'd think he was talking about some big world changing matter.

Oh, by the way...

Cheney's wife against gay-marriage ban

As the Senate debates a constitutional amendment, which her husband backs, she said the decision should be up to states.

By Will Lester - Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Lynne Cheney, the wife of Vice President Cheney, said yesterday that states should have the final say over the legal status of personal relationships.

That stand puts her at odds with the vice president on the need for the constitutional amendment now under debate in the Senate that effectively would ban same-sex marriage. The Cheneys have a gay daughter.

"I think that the constitutional-amendment discussion will give us an opportunity to look for ways to discuss ways in which we can keep the authority of the states intact," Lynne Cheney told CNN's Late Edition.

The Senate began debate Friday on an amendment that defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman as husband and wife.

Supporters acknowledge the proposal is endorsed by only about half the Senate, well short of the two-thirds needed to approve a change in the Constitution. Still, a vote could put lawmakers on the spot in an election year as they seek to balance backing traditional marriage and gay rights.

Both of the Cheneys' daughters - Elizabeth and Mary, who is a lesbian - are working in the vice president's campaign. Mary Cheney is director of vice-presidential operations for the Bush-Cheney campaign. She was her father's assistant in the 2000 race and helped the GOP recruit gay voters during the 2002 midterm elections. She has been less visible this year while traveling with her father or working at campaign headquarters in Arlington, Va., but will play a more public role as the election nears, campaign aides say.

President Bush said in his weekly radio address Saturday that legalizing gay marriage would redefine the most fundamental institution of civilization. A constitutional amendment is needed to protect marriage, he said.

During the 2000 campaign, candidate Dick Cheney took the position that states should decide legal issues about personal relationships and that people should be free to enter relationships of their choosing.

When Massachusetts' high court ruled last year that gay couples were entitled to wed, the issue became a hot political topic.

Bush and Cheney have voiced their support this year for the proposed constitutional amendment. Their Democratic rivals, Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina, oppose the amendment.

The Democratic candidates also oppose gay marriage but defend a gay couple's rights to the same legal protections as those conferred in marriage.

Asked yesterday about her husband's stand on gay marriage in 2004, Lynne Cheney said: "I thought that the formulation he used in 2000 was very good.

"First of all, to be clear that people should be free to enter into their relationships that they choose. And, secondly, to recognize what's historically been the situation, that when it comes to conferring legal status on relationships, that is a matter left to the states," she said.

Lynne Cheney said the situation in 2004 was somewhat different from the one four years ago because of the Massachusetts court ruling and its effect on states.

Asked about the difference between the Democrats and the Bush administration on the amendment, Lynne Cheney reaffirmed her preference for local solutions.

The vice president's press office had no immediate comment.

[moser]

Potentially really dumb question (perhaps I shouldn't consider law school): Can a constitutional amendment be considered unconstitutional (without having to have another amendment override the disputed one, a la Prohibition)?

IMO, the folks who are arguing for the amendment have to argue in intellectual terms b/c most of the objections to gay marriage is religiously based. If they argue on a religious basis, then there's the issue of separation of church (religion) and state.

[Mr.Lum]

this is retarted. the Alabama dude tried to draw a connection between gay marriages and socialism. and said that gay marriage is the reason Europe has a low birth rate (as if the US doesnt) and all this other nonsense.

[moser]

News analysts are saying that the amendment will probably not pass when the Senate votes on it tomorrow.

[>:^|]

Originally Posted by moser

News analysts are saying that the amendment will probably not pass when the Senate votes on it tomorrow.

Please don't count on it. Write your senator today and urge him to vote against this amendment.

http://www.senate.gov/

It is completely and utterly reprehensible to propose a Constitutional amendment that denies rights to a group of people.

[Faithless]

Originally Posted by moser

News analysts are saying that the amendment will probably not pass when the Senate votes on it tomorrow.

It's considered a "procedural vote".

And it's an interesting tactic to sidestep the issue without having to go on record to actually vote for the amendment.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLIT...esex.marriage/

...
Facing the prospect that the amendment as originally drafted wouldn't get a simple majority -- let alone the two-thirds vote needed for approval of a proposed amendment -- Republican leaders decided to move to a second version of the measure, stripped of language that troubled some GOP moderates.

But Democrats refused to go along.

That means supporters of the amendment will need to get 60 votes in a procedural vote Wednesday to cut off debate and move to a vote on the amendment itself -- a hurdle they are unlikely to overcome with most Democrats and some moderate Republicans opposed.
...

[Mr.Lum]

Chris Dodd is the man, he was doing his "turn red and yell" thing up there....my senator is the shit.

[kitty]

Originally Posted by moser

Potentially really dumb question (perhaps I shouldn't consider law school): Can a constitutional amendment be considered unconstitutional (without having to have another amendment override the disputed one, a la Prohibition)?

once it's ratified? i don't think so, because then it becomes part of the constitution. the idea is that if it IS originally unconstitutional, it doesn't pass. if it does pass and is LATER deemed unconstitutional, a new amendment must be made to change it, because the amendment has since become essentially a part of the original constitution.

[Emperor_Mike]

The proposed amendment has been defeated. Hooray for progress!

[VV o n g B a]

hey, jeff sessions (prolly the alabama senator u guys are talking about) spoke at my graduation i think. go sessions!

[cmar]

I is shameful that Bush would make this attempt to add a discrimination clause to the US Constitution. It is clear that they went ahead with the vote (even though they knew they would lose) only for political gain. This was only done to make Bush look good to conservatives and give them some "look-how-liberal-he-is" ammunition against Kerry.

I can not wait for November.

[yoMAMA]

what with those fanatics' obsession with bashing gays?

i mean they don't pick on anyone....

so let them marry if they want to...damm it!

[rice cracker]

Originally Posted by yoMAMA

what with those fanatics' obsession with bashing gays?

i mean they don't pick on anyone....

so let them marry if they want to...damm it!

It's the fear of change. You and I might call it progress, whereas people who go around with bumper stickers on their cars that say, "Marriage = Man + Woman" call it, "OMG SOMETHING DIFFERENT! Must fear it! Must kill it!"

[>:^|]

Originally Posted by yoMAMA

what with those fanatics' obsession with bashing gays?

i mean they don't pick on anyone....

so let them marry if they want to...damm it!

I often wonder if it's a way to scapegoat. People keep talking about how it would undermine opposite-gender marriage as if heterosexuals weren't doing a good enough job on their own. It would probably alienate too large a segment of the population if you talked about deadbeat dads and divorced persons. Better to say that those homosexuals are busy ruining the country.

In any event, write and let your senator know how you feel. This will continue to be an issue and we need to continue letting our senators know that this is totally reprehensible.

By the way, the House has a similar amendment. Make sure to write your congressional representative as well.

http://www.house.gov/

[moser]

And to think that the Republican party preaches "less government" and "states' rights."

Glad that it didn't pass.

--------------
Roll Call Vote