Reeps Wedge issue (Gay Marriage Ban Constitutional Amendment) fails in Senate

Will a gay marriage ban keep us safer from al-Qaeda?

Reeps = anti-marriage, pro-terrorist party

 

I'm just happy to know I should still be alive to see Republicans answer to this in 10-20 years, the same way many people now have to answer for being against civil rights in the 50s and 60s.

 

Just like Sen. Robert "KKK" Byrd from W.VA?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/820515/posts

 

Did you notice I put "people" for back then, and "Republicans" for right now?? Or did that escape you in your mad frenzy of an attempt to have a comeback??

 

No ********,

My party has been taken over my the militant Christians.

 

Can I just mention how this issue illustrates how politically incompetant the democrats are becoming? Whether the amendment dies or not, they've already fallen into the republican trap, getting painted as pansy-lovers etc.

Now if the democrats had any political savvy at all, instead of coming across as pro-gay-marriage (which alienates many people), they would have turned the issue into a political boondoggle for republicans by focusing on the following perspectives;

a) Do we have some things that are a bit more important to worry about than what a few homos do? Maybe like Osama Bin laden? maybe like jobs? Social Security? Janet Jackson's boobs? Republicans who focus on gay marriage (Esteemed senator who has lent his name to the brown guck that leaks from the butt after anal reamings, I'm looking at you) are wasting their time on frivolous issues instead of making america better

b) It's the fricking constitution. The Epitomy of America. The great document that sets our wonderful country apart from all the others in the world. the sacred paper that our founding fathers, and every patriotic american has fought and died for. Don't be adding something in there about butt-sex. Or discrimination. This would be the 2nd time the constitution was amended for stupid-ass reasons-specifically saying "americans are free, but specifically cannot do such and such", and we know the 1st time, prohibition, worked out so incredibly well.

Democrats are stupid if they get into a debate on gay marriage. they'd get so much more political play if they pulled a McCain and said (paraphrased) "well, I don't like butt-sex marriages, but this ain't the answer"

 

Isn't this basically what most democrats are doing? I haven't heard any of them up there saying "I oppose this amendment b/c I'm off to the cloak room to get it on with Barney Frank."

The Democrats problem is they can't get their message out through the media, but I think having Senator Dirty Sheets up there saying that all Democrats hate marriage hurts the Republicans more than the Dems. Andrew Sullivan's got some good stuff about how all these attempts to woo theocons could push moderates away from the Repubs.

 

You are right, they say that, but aren't getting their message out to most americans, many of whom still view this as an emotional vote no against butt-sex issue. That's why I think they are doing a crappy job of politicking.

when people say the democrats have no backbone, its because they do not have the strength of will, or media accumen to turn the tables on knee-jerk conservative talk show hosts and cable channels.

 

I couldn't agree more.

Sincerely,
Sen. Strom Thurmond (sp.)

 

And Kerry and Edwards abstaining from this vote doesn't exactly help this perception. If ever there was a moment to get up and give a Mr. Smith type speech about the Constitution, that would get a lot of media play, look courageous and principled, and play to moderate voters who are a little worried about religion in politics, this was it.

Nice work, nimrods.

 

its pretty sad that the best democratic speech in years was in the movie American President.

I give democrats a D on this issue so far (barely passing, but only due to grade inflation and the bell curve considering their classmates)

 

While I do not approve of the Republican's views about gays, I do not believe the two situations are remotely comparable.

 

I admit they're on different scales, but I think the gay marriage deal is a no brainer and a gimme. In twenty years, people are gonna question those still in office on why they ever thought it shouldn't be...that's all I meant.

 

My understanding is that this was NOT a vote on the amendment, but some kind of procedural vote that effectively killed it for a year. (Someone else could probably enlighten me on this.) There is no reason for Kerry or Edwards to have abandoned the campaign trail to be there, since this wasn't an actual vote on the amendment.

 

The Republican Crusade as the sequel to the Republican Revolution?

 

No, Kerry & Edwards played this perfectly. The last thing they want to do is take the Republicans' bait.

 

I really could care less about this issue, but from a legal standpoint what is "the" answer?

It is funny to see Kerry and the liberals all of a sudden make this a "states rights" issue. When this issue can not possibly be handled on a state by state basis. Can you imagine the number of lawsuits that will be filed if some states refuse to recognize marriages that happen in other states?

The only possible solution is either a supreme court decision, or a constitutional ammendment. Isn't it better that the decision be made by our elected representatives through a constitutional ammendment than by the Supreme Court?

 

Michael, once again, you show that individuals not trained in the law, should not try to practice it.

 

I'm curious about why you have this impression. Maybe it's because I'm too politically tuned in to fall for the simple spin but I'm not getting that message at all. The two storylines I keep seeing are Democrats opposing the ammendment on three grounds: It's not neccessary, there are more important things to work on, and that it violates the spirit of the Constitution all of which are safe positions while the Republicans come off as bumbling incompetents who can't even agree on the language they want to use in their symbolic ammendment. It's been clear for days that they didn't have the votes to even get close to the 67 they'd need no matter which version was submitted. Now it turns out that they can't even keep their caucus together on a procedural vote to bring whichever version they finally scribbled out to the floor.

While there may still be a majority that opposes gay marriage it isn't nearly so clear cut a position: Polling report (via Kos) http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/7/13/221610/468 lists the following:

NBC/WSJ: Favor FMA 51% Oppose 44%
UPenn: Favor FMA 43% Oppose 48%
CBS: Favor Marriage 28% Favor Civil Union 29% (Total 57%) No legal recognition 40%
Fox (!): Favor Marriage 25% Favor Civil Union 26% (51%) No legal recognition 40%

I just don't see this hurting the dems in any real sense.

 

Not trying to practice anything just giving my opinion. Did you notice my very first sentence was a question? If you have some pertenant legal information please provide it. Or at least explain why my opinion is incorrect.

Are you saying this issue is not going to end up in the supreme court?

Without an ammendment, it will probably end up their, again, and again, and again.

So it is hillarious that the Dem's have tried to argue what a "waste of time" an ammendment is, when in fact without an ammendment this issue will now probably take up thousands of hours of court time.

 

I guess that would depend on how honestly the debate was conducted, and what the final wording of the ammendmant was. Of course neither party is really interested in an honest debate that could lead to a moderate ammendmant that could help give the courts some direction.

I think an Ammendmant that somehow defined "marriage" as only between a man and a woman but created a federal "civil union" that must be accepted by every state, would help save a lot of court time.

 

Good God, NO!

Constitutional amendments are extremely rare -- by design. The SC can efficiently deal with issues, and if they get it wrong, they can address it again the next time someone brings it up.

Your elected representatives already passed the defense of marriage act. There is no doubt that someone will sue to say that this act is in conflict with the full faith and credit clause. The SC will surely take the case, and the matter will be decided. If the act is upheld, then states can decide for themselves if they want to honor same sex marriages from other states.

If it is not upheld, it seems to me the more relevant constitutional amendment issue is whether the legislative branch can, in certain situations, make exceptions to the full faith and credit clause.

Those are the types of broad constitutional principles that should be considered. We should NOT be looking at narrow amendments over one highly-political issue as sort of a zinger at a certain group.

Tell me what is wrong with that set up?

I am getting tired of the latest republican talking point that always starts with "non-elected, liberal, activist judges." The separation of powers is key to our continued existence. The system has a way of fixing itself and its errors, but it takes time (see Plessey v. Ferguson and Brown v. Bd of Ed.) Republicans are now attacking court decisions at every turn and saying "it should be left up to the people."

What they are saying is "you should transfer some of this balanced power established in our constitution, that has served us well for 215 years, from the judiciary to the legislature so that we have more power than they do."

This is a bad idea.

I know it's hard when you have Mr. Black and White as the head of your party, but have a little patience.