Gay Marriage ban no longer an issue

[exDS vet]

Thankfully, the people in DC got something right and the proposed constitutional ammendment banning same-sex marriage is dead. Any thoughts?

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by exDS vet
Thankfully, the people in DC got something right and the proposed constitutional ammendment banning same-sex marriage is dead. Any thoughts?

It was expected but I'm glad they didn't even manage to get a simple majority.

This should send a strong, loud, and clear message to the w administration that the people do not them mucking up the Constitution.

And thanks to all the Senators who voted against the measure and to all those who called and urged their Senators to do so!

 

[N.Bailey]

I'm not certain that's the last we'll be hearing about it, but I agree that the right outcome was reached today.

 

[GEM]

 

[spearenb]

The vote for the ammendment was 50-48... 98 of 100 senators voted... anyone want to guess who didn't vote and probably won't have to state their positions?

 

[N.Bailey]

Originally posted by spearenb
The vote for the ammendment was 50-48... 98 of 100 senators voted... anyone want to guess who didn't vote and probably won't have to state their positions?

I was begging someone to wager with me last night. Someone said they'd take the wager beings they heard on several stations that both Kerry and Edwards would be there. I only heard they said they'd try to be there. I knew they'd skip out though and they certainly didn't let me down.

GOOOOOO KERRY!!!!!

 

[faithinkarma]

Originally posted by spearenb
The vote for the ammendment was 50-48... 98 of 100 senators voted... anyone want to guess who didn't vote and probably won't have to state their positions?

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=146-07...

To: National Desk and Political Reporter

Contact: Allison Dobson of Kerry-Edwards, 202-464-2800, Web: http://www.johnkerry.com

BOSTON, July 14 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Senator John Kerry released the following statement today:

"The floor of the United States Senate should only be used for the common good, not issues designed to divide us for political purposes. Throughout history, amending our Constitution -- the foundation of the nation's values and ideals -- has been serious business. However, even Republicans concede that this amendment is being offered only for political gains. The unfortunate result is that the important work of the American people -- funding our homeland security needs, creating new and better jobs, and raising the minimum wage -- is not getting done. Had this amendment reached a final vote, I would have voted against it, because I believe that the American people deserve better than this from their leaders. When I am president, I will work to bring the nation together and build a stronger America."

 

[peachgirl]

Yes, but Bush is now on record supporting such an amendment and that was the entire point of this excercise in futility anyway.

 

[ThreeCircles]

I agree that the motives for this move were nothing but politics. However, I think the thing pretty much blew up in the republican's faces.

Going into this they understood they were not going to get it to pass. Well, perhaps some of them thought they would but it seems the vast majority knew it was a long-shot. The funny thing is, they couldn't even get a simple majority!

They may have shored-up some of the staunchest conservative votes through the amendment. But, then again, the most conservative of conservative probably would vote for w if he personally shot someone.

They DID manage to bring fire onto themselves from more moderate republicans. Ala, McCain wonderfully sums it up when he says this amendment is "un-republican" and "draconian." And who was w attempting to slip into bed with just last week?

As polls show, the vast majority of Americans do not believe the Constitution should be amended. So, w is going against their beliefs and wishes for partisan gain. Not a good idea.

All in all, I'd say this was a republican tactic that turned into a republican train wreck.

 

[crazyforgoofy]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
I agree that the motives for this move were nothing but politics. However, I think the thing pretty much blew up in the republican's faces.

Going into this they understood they were not going to get it to pass. Well, perhaps some of them thought they would but it seems the vast majority knew it was a long-shot. The funny thing is, they couldn't even get a simple majority!

They may have shored-up some of the staunchest conservative votes through the amendment. But, then again, the most conservative of conservative probably would vote for w if he personally shot someone.

They DID manage to bring fire onto themselves from more moderate republicans. Ala, McCain wonderfully sums it up when he says this amendment is "un-republican" and "draconian." And who was w attempting to slip into bed with just last week?

As polls show, the vast majority of Americans do not believe the Constitution should be amended. So, w is going against their beliefs and wishes for partisan gain. Not a good idea.

All in all, I'd say this was a republican tactic that turned into a republican train wreck.

Yup!

 

[Shellie722]

ITA

 

[spearenb]

Interesting that the vote was 50-48 for the ammendment. Would it be to far out on the limb to say that most of the 48 nays would have supported a law (not an ammendment) to ban gay marriages? Most of the 48 nays, I believe, only said that it shouldn't be an ammendment.

Of course, if a law was created, straight to the SC we would go!


BTW, one of the most powerful Democrats voted for it (Byrd - WV). I just find it interesting...

 

[tandrjohn]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
All in all, I'd say this was a republican tactic that turned into a republican train wreck.

Good way of putting it. The republicans may have shored up the ultra-conservative vote a little by doing this but at the same time probably alienated more moderates and independents.

 

[auntpolly]

Originally posted by tandrjohn
Good way of putting it. The republicans may have shored up the ultra-conservative vote

And this, IMHO, is where the Republicans make a big mistake. Are all republicans willing to let the ultraconservatives dictate party philosophy?

Republicans out there -- doesn't this tick you off a little bit? i wouldn't be quite so at odds with your party if you told the right wing Christians to back off a little once in awhile.

 

[N.Bailey]

Originally posted by spearenb
Interesting that the vote was 50-48 for the ammendment. Would it be to far out on the limb to say that most of the 48 nays would have supported a law (not an ammendment) to ban gay marriages? Most of the 48 nays, I believe, only said that it shouldn't be an ammendment.

Of course, if a law was created, straight to the SC we would go!


BTW, one of the most powerful Democrats voted for it (Byrd - WV). I just find it interesting...

I could be wrong, but I believe the nays totaled 50 and the yeas totaled 48.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by spearenb
Interesting that the vote was 50-48 for the ammendment. Would it be to far out on the limb to say that most of the 48 nays would have supported a law (not an ammendment) to ban gay marriages? Most of the 48 nays, I believe, only said that it shouldn't be an ammendment.

Of course, if a law was created, straight to the SC we would go!


BTW, one of the most powerful Democrats voted for it (Byrd - WV). I just find it interesting...

There is already a law out there that while not banning gay marriage, does say that the federal government won't recognize it and that states don't have to recognize it if they choose not to. I haven't looked at the list of nays from yesterday, but seeing as DOMA passed by a good sized majority in 1996, I think it's a pretty safe bet that a number of nays yesterday voted yea in '96.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by spearenb
Interesting that the vote was 50-48 for the ammendment. Would it be to far out on the limb to say that most of the 48 nays would have supported a law (not an ammendment) to ban gay marriages? Most of the 48 nays, I believe, only said that it shouldn't be an ammendment.

Of course, if a law was created, straight to the SC we would go!


BTW, one of the most powerful Democrats voted for it (Byrd - WV). I just find it interesting...

And as I stated yesterday, being on the same side of a civil rights issue as Bob Byrd can't be all that comfortable to anyone that knows the senator's history

I like Bob...he's done a lot for this state (and we need a lot of help, unfortunately)...But I sent a note yesterday stating my displeasure about his decision on this one, so it should be interesting to see if he responds (he has before).

I am really looking forward to the day that DOMA is challenged in the supreme court, btw...It should be interesting to see wether the court rules on the side of right or the side of political expediency.

 

[spearenb]

Originally posted by N.Bailey
I could be wrong, but I believe the nays totaled 50 and the yeas totaled 48.

I stand corrected. 50 nays and 48 yeas. Sorry for the misread.

www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=2&vote=00155

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by tandrjohn
Good way of putting it. The republicans may have shored up the ultra-conservative vote a little by doing this but at the same time probably alienated more moderates and independents.

Yes, I definitely agree, and I'm pretty sure that will help us in the long run. (Kerry supporters).

 

[Eeyore1954]

The fat lady has not begun to sing just yet...

Another attempt in the House