Breaking: Senate rejects gay marriage amendment, 49-48
posted at 10:49 am on June 7, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
AP is reporting. I’ll have the roll when it’s up.
Update: MM was on O’Reilly a few nights ago to discuss the subject. Watch now at Expose the Left. Her opinion is in line with most Americans’: according to the most recent poll, 58% oppose gay marriage but 51% think it should be left to the states to decide. William F. Buckley says that’s precisely what the amendment is trying to do:
It is important to stress the point made by the president in advancing his defense of the marriage amendment. Sure, it has moral implications, but there is more to the amendment than that. What it seeks to do is to guard the right of individual states to devise their own requirements in the matter of marriage…
It is the point here that in an age of judicial activism, we have in effect the nullification of state laws. Not a single state legislature has passed a same-sex marriage law. But there is no reason to bet that when faced with such a law, the Supreme Court will deny itself the authority to override states that affirm traditional distinctions.
Here’s the text of the amendment; Buckley is correct that its main focus is the courts, not the states. As I said here, I think these laws violate the Equal Protection Clause so I’m not troubled by them being nullified, but your mileage may vary. I’m pretty sure Mark Jaquith, our tech wizard, would agree with me, so that puts it 2-1 within the Hot Air family in favor of gay marriage. Will Bryan drop in here and tie it up? Stay tuned.
Anyway. Now that this is off the table, the Senate needs something else to divert our attention from their amnesty bill. And sure enough…
Update: Here’s the roll. There’s one interesting name on the “nay” list.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Bush should have gone to california to campaign for Bilbray. ….NOpe…our Commander in Chief wanna stir up the gay hornet nest instead…way to go, Commander in Brief…uh..Chief.
Bush is so transparent.
easy87us on June 7, 2006 at 11:07 AM
Looks like I have some apologies to make to my liberal friends. Bush really IS a dumbass. Talk about being asleep at the wheel…or, rather, “dormido en la rueda,” for our invading friends from the South who are just joining us…
BirdEye on June 7, 2006 at 11:16 AM
This whole amendment thing was timed to try to throw some red meat toward moral conservative contingents, while having the headlines fade away before the elections. It wasn’t going to pass and I think the White House knew it. A pawn sacrificed on the ‘06 chessboard to help position the main pieces.
Mike O on June 7, 2006 at 11:20 AM
The problem is that conservatives who take this more as a slap in the face (based on timing) are now even unhappier with everything. So instead of energizing his base he’s just pissed them off even more
Defector01 on June 7, 2006 at 11:58 AM
Hmmm…McCain sez “Nay”…
Are RINOs becoming an endangered species or what?
Kokonut on June 7, 2006 at 12:06 PM
The Republican Party is doing everything it can to win back the Republican-Conservative vote.
There are 5 kinds of Republican voters:
1 – Republican voters who are extremely loyal to the Party and would vote Republican no matter what.
2 – Independent Conservative voters who although are registered “Republicans” might reconsider giving a blank check to the Republican Party after proving its inefficiency in governing by failing to advance the Conservative Cause. They may chose to stay home.
3 – Christian Conservative voters who as No.2 voters are disappointed and might as well stay home.
4 – Liberal Republican voters -in the West and North East coast- who although might be at the Center-Right- may express their anger with the Republican Party by voting “Liberal.”
5 – Lay Republican voters who are nonchalant, who are victims of the Liberal 6:30 pm alphabetical Media, and who, as a consequence, will believe the lies they are fed and would vote “Liberal.”
Of course, there are the “Independent” voters who have nothing to do with politics and who would vote on “hearsay.”
CatholicConservative on June 7, 2006 at 12:28 PM
I’m surprised it was that close!
Warner Todd Huston on June 7, 2006 at 12:37 PM
Well,
I reject those spandex wearing Senators.
Kramer on June 7, 2006 at 12:46 PM
Now, let me get this straight(no pun intended). The United States Senate, our LAWMAKERS, say that we SHOULD overlook felonies and illegalities, and invite tens of millions of new workers, welfare recipiants, and people drawing on SS who never paid into it, but we we SOULD NOT do what is necessary stop an activist renegade liberal judge from having the opportunity to thwart THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE with a goofy thought and the stroke of their pen???
Thereis something VERY VERY wrong in this Country. And guess what, it’s ALL DOWNHILL from here if this is now what passes for “government” “of the people, by the people, and for the people”.
NRA4Freedom on June 7, 2006 at 2:32 PM
Hmmm. I am not a lawyer, so if I make a legal point that is wrong, someone please correct me.
Allah, I agree that the Equal Protection Clause is an important thing. Normally, I support it. But doesn’t its existence make it necessary to have a constitutional amendment if we want to have any real chance of keeping marriage a heterosexual thing? Doesn’t that Equal Protection Clause mean that as soon as one state, by no matter what method, (judicial activism, perhaps) makes homosexual marriage legal, all states have to recognize those marriages? So as soon as one state recognizes it, can’t any homosexual couple can go to that state, get married, and then return to their home state and be a completely legally married couple?
So doesn’t that render moot the argument that this should be an issue for the states to decide?
Personally, this whole gay marriage thing snuck up on me. For years, I have heard about homosexual rights and what not. For the most part, I didn’t pay it too much mind. When they passed laws that said that gays shouldn’t be discriminated against in employment or housing, to me, it seemed reasonable enough. Implementing the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the military? Well, it might not be the best thing, but I figured we could live with that. But gay marriage? What the heck? Call me naïve, but I didn’t expect that!!!
Right or wrong, doesn’t our system of law as it is now leave us with no other option than a constitutional amendment?
EFG on June 7, 2006 at 3:51 PM
EFG: there’s always the option of minding your own business. After all, it’s not like they’re going to start re-producing……
After all the fuss, the matter will be settle generationally–younger people are for gay marriage, older against. So you see you will have the last word.
honora on June 7, 2006 at 3:56 PM
Hello Honora.
I respect opinion, but I don’t agree with it. As far as minding my own business, yes that is usually a good policy. However, I don’t think that applies here. When I have two homosexuals living next door to me, I am pretty sure that they are sharing a bed together. I can guess what is going on. But in the privacy of their own home, I say that is their business, not mine. So I mind my own business.
However, I don’t think that is applicable to marriage. A marriage vow entails society and its participants saying and acknowledging that there is a marriage here. It also entails approval. And I don’t think I can agree with that.
We have marriages because we a society think this is the way to go. Are a man and a woman allowed to live together without being married? Yes. Are they allowed to have children with out being married? Yes. Is this what we want? No. We prefer that they get married so that they can build a family together.
Hmmm. I have re-read my comments. I am not sure they are as logically well ordered as I like. Nevertheless, they are the best I can do for right now. Perhaps one day I shall obtain my degree in logic and critical thinking. Unfortunately, that day appears to be a long way off. Until then, I shall continue to keep reaching for that rainbow…No pun intended. ;-)
Very respectfully,
EFG on June 7, 2006 at 4:35 PM
Honora,
The only reason some younger people are not opposed to homosexual marriage is because 1) they have just been through the liberal brainwashing establishments that we like to call public schools and it hasn’t worn off yet, and 2) they are young and their minds of mush don’t necessarily reason correctly because they have little or no life experience for it to use for guidance.
And unless they were raised in a God fearing home, they will have little or no knowledge of morality, other than what they have been brainwashed into believing is morality by liberal brainwashing institutions we call public schools, which in reality is immorality, or what they have picked up along the way by accident to the dismay of the liberal brainwashing establishments we call public school.
As they get older, one of three things will happen. 1) They will come to know and respect God, believe His word and know the truth. Or, 2) they will take their liberal brainwashing to heart and become mindless liberal fools who for the rest of their physical lives will always stand for the immoral things, ignorantly believing that good is bad and bad is good. Or, 3) they will ignore God and ignore their liberalistic brainwashing they got growing up and turn into people who really don’t give a crap one way or the other about anything except that which directly affects them in their life and that makes them personally content.
Of course, IF you had read the link to the first chapter of Ann Coulter’s new book, you would know the truth anyway. That if people are actually born homosexual, and cannot change, then pedophiles and animal sex lovers must be born the way they are also. So where are you going to stand on pedophiles “rights” and someone’s “right” to have sex with animals? What happens when the guy wants to marry his sheep, or the pedophile finds a consenting 12 year old to “marry”?
Oh wait, I already know the answer to that, you think that those are icky but you don’t think homosexual “rights” are all that bad. Congratulations, you have just set yourself up as THE moral arbiter of the world. Wow, you must be a god. But then, you already thought that anyway.
Fact is, sick sexual perversions within the concept of American society IS everybody’s business. And the vast majority of “everybody” knows that they do not want sick disgusting sexual perversions labeled as “marriage”.
NRA4Freedom on June 7, 2006 at 4:51 PM
Arlen Specter
– spit -
Richard Davis on June 7, 2006 at 6:33 PM
Looks like the “people of the Senate” have spoken. Once again the People of the United States are screwed by the People of the Senate. It is high time we get these idiots out of there.
gary on June 7, 2006 at 6:36 PM
NRA4Freedom: Outstanding. I wish I was so articulate. You remind me of another fella who uses the handle lentulusgracchus on another site I was booted from.
ecamorg on June 7, 2006 at 7:48 PM
“was” should be “were”
ecamorg on June 7, 2006 at 7:51 PM
Can’t Congress simply restrict juristiction of federal courts in this matter? Doesn’t the Constitution already provide for this?
dman on June 7, 2006 at 7:56 PM
ecamorg, wasn’t me, I got here from http://www.mightyrighty.com, where right is right and the left is, well, something to laugh about.
NRA4Freedom on June 7, 2006 at 9:13 PM
In the end, the GOP controlled Senate let all God fearing United States citizens totally down on this issue. The idea that it “should be left up to the States to decide” is nothing but a cop out, since as has already been proven multiple times, the “States” cannot actually “decide” anything anymore because the will of the people will always be circumvented by liberal activist judges who make up their own laws for people to live by from the bench, while Congress stands by and does nothing to stop them.
One can only conclude that this Nation is doomed if this is allowed to continue, which seems to be probable. Perhaps it is too bad that all the activist judges out there seem to be liberals, since if there were any conservative ones randomly declaring that various liberalistic laws “unconstitutional”, like mandatory seat belt laws or pollution laws or whatever, the liberals then would be all over it like stink on sht.
So, where ARE the “activist” conservative judges who are willing to fight fire with fire, and start declaring all kinds of leftist leaning laws “unconstitutional”??? Let’s start with State gun laws. Imagine if we applied all the rules and regulations that States believe they can impose on the 2nd Amendment to the 1st. It looks like this is going to be the ONLY way to fight these people, who have figured out how to use our own laws against us to force their own will on the populace, regardless of what the majority of the populace wants.
NRA4Freedom on June 8, 2006 at 10:39 AM
Based on the precedent of Loving v. Virginia, the SCOTUS decision that made race-based marriage discrimination illegal, yeah, a gay marriage ban does appear to violate the Equal Protection Clause.
Here is an excerpt from that decision:
Just replace “race” with “gender” and you’re in business. The Equal Protection Clause has been used elsewhere to protect against gender-based discrimination.
So start impeaching activist judges. I don’t like activist judges (which ever way they rule) any more than you, but that is its own problem.
Mark Jaquith on June 26, 2006 at 2:42 AM
Comment pages: