Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Senate blocks constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage

Senate Constitutional Amendment Ban on Gay Marriage 2005

  • Please log in to reply
123 replies to this topic

#1 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 07 June 2006 - 10:26 AM

http://news.bbc.co.u...cas/5056474.stm

surprise surprise

Quote

The US Senate has blocked a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
President George W Bush had backed the ban, saying marriage between a man and a woman was the most fundamental institution of civilisation.

But the motion gained the votes of 49 senators, 11 short of the 60 needed to allow the process to go forward.

Quote

Mr Bush has argued marriage needs protection from "activist judges" and an amendment would ensure no court could undermine what he said were the views of the American people.

But Democrats accuse Mr Bush of cynically promoting an issue which appeared to have little chance of Congressional approval to appeal to the Republicans' conservative base ahead of November's mid-term elections.

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#2 enTranced

enTranced

    Chasing Your Starlight!

  • Islander
  • 15,772 posts

Posted 07 June 2006 - 10:30 AM

Surprise?

It was doomed to failure from the start.

It worries me a little that it did gain some support because god help us if it ever actualy somehow manages to pass it would tear the nation apart at the seams.

EDIT : Because I'm pissed that this is even a issue : Somebody please show Dubyah the f-ing Bill of Rights. Please?

enTranced

Edited by enTranced, 07 June 2006 - 10:31 AM.

Posted Image

#3 Zwolf

Zwolf
  • Islander
  • 3,683 posts

Posted 07 June 2006 - 10:49 AM

Yep, that wasn't going to get anywhere.  Even a lot of the busybodies who'd be against gay marriage are going to balk at ammending the Constitution.  Putting in ammendments against freedoms doesn't seem to work out very well, anyway.  Prohibition just helped organized crime get organized, for instance.  And Republicans are supposed to be for a less-intrusive government, and state's rights... this move goes against that.  It'll make some of the social conservatives happy, but it'll likely tick off almost as many of the rest.

Anyway, this might shut a few people up.  When they start carping about it, they can be reminded "You had your day in court, and you lost."   O' course, that won't really stop them from carping, but they can still be told that...

Why not just an ammendment to ban marriage entirely?  You can pick your mate and you don't need the government or the church to "justify" your personal commitment.  

Too much freedom in that, I reckon... probably dangerous. :)

Cheers,

Zwolf
"I've moved on and I'm feeling fine
And I'll feel even better
When your life has nothing to do with mine."
-Pittbull, "No Love Lost"

"There are things that I'd like to say
But I'm never talking to you again
There's things I'd like to phrase some way
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'd put you down where you belong
But I'm never talking to you again
I'd show you everywhere you're wrong
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you."
- Husker Du, "Never Talking To You Again"

#4 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 07 June 2006 - 10:50 AM

I will only say the damm document is not meant for social engineering. I oppose making gay marriage an amendment either in support or opposition.  We should have learned when we tried to end the consumption of alcohol.


As to the issue. I would perfer this be handled on a state by state basis. It allows people to accept the idea. It allows the debate of the topic to happen. It means yes there will be failures and also successes. Anything else has the feel of having one side or the other shoving their agenda down our throats. Same if we have the courts make the ruling.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#5 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 07 June 2006 - 11:13 AM

View PostenTranced, on Jun 7 2006, 11:30 AM, said:

Surprise?

It was doomed to failure from the start.

It worries me a little that it did gain some support because god help us if it ever actualy somehow manages to pass it would tear the nation apart at the seams.

EDIT : Because I'm pissed that this is even a issue : Somebody please show Dubyah the f-ing Bill of Rights. Please?

enTranced


I don't think it would tear the country apart, many staes already ban gay marrige, but you are very correct in bringing up the rights to "Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happiness" that Gays are denighed in the USA.
Can't Touch This!!

#6 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 07 June 2006 - 11:19 AM

Those are not rights given in the bill of rights. They are part of the foundation we used to seperate ourselves from Great Britian.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#7 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 07 June 2006 - 11:25 AM

You are correct sir, a badly worded post on my part.

Here are the two biggies for this issue.

Quote


Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Can't Touch This!!

#8 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 07 June 2006 - 11:31 AM

Now I support the idea of a right to privacy. Hell I started a thread about it a couple of months ago.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#9 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 07 June 2006 - 11:41 AM

View PostG1223, on Jun 7 2006, 11:50 AM, said:

I will only say the damm document is not meant for social engineering. I oppose making gay marriage an amendment either in support or opposition.  We should have learned when we tried to end the consumption of alcohol.


As to the issue. I would perfer this be handled on a state by state basis. It allows people to accept the idea. It allows the debate of the topic to happen. It means yes there will be failures and also successes. Anything else has the feel of having one side or the other shoving their agenda down our throats. Same if we have the courts make the ruling.

:eek4:  We agree.    

Matrimonial law is STATE law, so the Federal government has no business getting involved in the first place.  The only time the Fed has *ever* passed a marriage related law, it was to engage in legislative gay bashing in the name of crass, election year politics--And, yes, I'm talking about Bill Clinton.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#10 The Oncoming Storm

The Oncoming Storm

    Water's wet; sky's blue; and Satan Clause is out there.

  • Islander
  • 3,351 posts

Posted 07 June 2006 - 11:43 AM

Legally speaking, this issue is best handled by the states because of the 9th and 10th Amendments.  The states, ever since the colonial times, have had the authority to set forth such civil documents as marriage, wills, etc.  It was left to the states when the Framers did not include it in the powers delegated to the Constitution.  In fact, it is the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the Constitution which is the hang up.  (See Art. IV, Sect. 1)  Some states have gay marriage bans, other do not.  But, if a gay couple from California move to Louisiana, which has a gay marriage ban, Louisiana would have to recognize their status due to the "Full Faith and Credit" clause.  

I like what Charles Krauthammer said yesterday on FoxNews.  This is now an issue because of the judiciary and the only branch that can solve it, reasonably, will be the judiciary in the form of the Supreme Court.  This will probably happen when someone challenges a gay marriage ban and it works its way up to the SCOTUS.  When they rule, the lower courts and judges (who gave birth to this issue) will have to abide by the ruling.  An amendment is a terrible idea for the following reasoning:  Right now, a large majority of the country (as evidenced by polls and the gay marriage bans) would favor such an amendment.  It would pass, in the name of popular sovreignty.  What about down the road, when the majority would favor gay marriage?  The amendment would block them, forcing Congress to render the said amendment null and void.  It would violate popular sovreignty of the future in the name of popular sovreignty of the present.  

The judiciary is the only branch which can solve the issue.

Rose: [disgusted] Oh, look at what the cat dragged in: "The Oncoming Storm."

"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." -- John Wayne


Sometimes the best causes worth fighting for are lost causes. -- Me.

Formerly Known as "Lost Cause."


#11 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 07 June 2006 - 11:56 AM

^But what happens when a married couple moves to a state that doesn't recognize their union? Even as it is, there's still nonsense in Massachusetts since they don't let out-of-state couples get married here if same-sex marriage isn't legal in their own home state. It's an old law that should have been stricken down years ago, but is still on the books.

#12 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 07 June 2006 - 12:22 PM

Apparently, the loophole in the Full Faith & Credit Clause is in the section that leaves it up to the states to decide what is considered adequate "proof."  That's how DOMA passes constitutional muster... for now.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#13 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 07 June 2006 - 12:28 PM

I disagree that the courts are the only group that can solve this. It's called a ballot box. It has this thing called the PEOPLE who are to vote on such issues.

Otherwise we will have the courts as social engineers trying to make laws that will effect generations of people. The courts solving this will drive people to extreams. At least with the vote it can be seen truely how the people feel on an issue.

And if the side that loses goes through the process of changing minds we can reach a understanding. It might not be what one side wants but it will eventually be something we can all live with.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#14 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 07 June 2006 - 12:53 PM

View PostG1223, on Jun 7 2006, 01:28 PM, said:

I disagree that the courts are the only group that can solve this. It's called a ballot box. It has this thing called the PEOPLE who are to vote on such issues.

Otherwise we will have the courts as social engineers trying to make laws that will effect generations of people. The courts solving this will drive people to extreams.

No, the courts exist precisely to deal with issues such as this, to provide a check against the tyranny of the majority.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#15 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 07 June 2006 - 12:56 PM

At the present time, heterosexual marriages are not a "sacred institution", but a mere convenience. People stay married for a few years and then get divorced or separated.

I would favor such a marriage amendment if traditional marriage were treated by men and women as a lifelong commitment. But it's such a joke these days, anyawy. How many marriages last?

-Ogami

#16 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 07 June 2006 - 02:03 PM

^I've been friends with Lou since Freshman year of high school. When he told me that he was getting divorced, I realized that among his siblings there would be 4 divorces for 3 people. In my family, I think I've had 2 uncles out of 11 blood aunts and uncles (and parents) who have had divorces.

#17 offworlder

offworlder

    pls don't kick offworlders, we can find a place too

  • Islander
  • 5,363 posts

Posted 07 June 2006 - 02:50 PM

I also agree, let's keep the constitution for Giving us things, not limiting and taking away.

I do believe that marriage means what marriage has always meant and now that there are more gay couples openly together 'out' should not change marriage; it's always been a man and a woman married together in faith and in law and it should remain; maybe it's a visceral thing with me, but that's what I've always known marriage to be; people are changing so many other things I've known to be so it's not what I know it anymore, cripes! let's not change that one too!

Now having said that, I agree that gay couples living together in a common law married type of a way should get the same benefits: let's have laws ensuring they have the rights to gov-bennies, corp-bennies, tax-bennies, 'family only' bennies like staying and visiting and access, et al - I just don't like using the marriage word for those laws.

I do wonder though, if we leave things like public or popular rights up to the states, can that work out well for the public and the populus? I wonder if the only way to give and ensure rights is at a national level? let's just not let it be in the constitution; but then others will argue that if it's in national legislation, then it will change and change again with each party rule in successive eight year waves, seasaw seasaw for scoring political points, so you'll have a right one year and you won't another year. I wonder if there is some national way beside the constitution to guard against that happening.

I do though say, Give to people, don't take away and limit. Perhaps this will just always remain a hot and mean issue, like abortion.
"(Do you read what they say online?) I check out all these scandalous rumours about me and Elijah Wood having beautiful sex with each other ... (are they true?) About Elijah and me being boyfriend and boyfriend? Absolutely true. We've been together for about nine years. I wooed him. No I just like a lot of stuff - I like that someone says one thing and it becomes fact. It's kind of fun." --Dominic Monaghan in a phone interview with Newsweek while buying DVDs at the store. :D

#18 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 07 June 2006 - 02:55 PM

View Post_ph, on Jun 7 2006, 01:53 PM, said:

View PostG1223, on Jun 7 2006, 01:28 PM, said:

I disagree that the courts are the only group that can solve this. It's called a ballot box. It has this thing called the PEOPLE who are to vote on such issues.

Otherwise we will have the courts as social engineers trying to make laws that will effect generations of people. The courts solving this will drive people to extreams.

No, the courts exist precisely to deal with issues such as this, to provide a check against the tyranny of the majority.


To replace it with the tyranny of the minority? It was the general populus of the south that finally came to a understanding about intergration. Is it perfect? No but half a century ago three white men dragging to death a black man would not have raised an eyebrow in Texas. But only a few years ago it got two of them placed into prison for life and the third on death row.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#19 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 07 June 2006 - 03:13 PM

Wanted to add.

The courts ruling in Boston has made it so that the states are changing their constitutions to ban it. What then the Feds. Where pushing too hard is going to get the House and Senete to push out an amendment.


This is a situation where injustice is going to happen till people realize the mistake. Shoving it in the faces of the people is going to have a negative fallout. We are seeing it now the only way to change minds is to show the person where they are wrong and how to change their perceptions.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#20 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 07 June 2006 - 06:55 PM

"This argument for same-sex marriage reflects a demand for political correctness that's gone berserk. We live in an era in which tolerance has progressed beyond a mere call for acceptance and crossed over to become a demand for the rest of us to give up beliefs that we revere and hold most dear in order to prove our collective purity. At some point a line's going to have to be drawn by rational men and women who are willing to say 'enough.'"



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Senate, Constitutional Amendment, Ban on Gay Marriage, 2005

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users