Anti-Gay-Marriage Amendment Loses 48-50

**Theophylact** · July 14th, 2004, 01:55 PM

On a procedural vote. According to the story, the defeat would have been even larger if it had been on the substance of the amendment rather than on the question of bringing it up at all.

**vass0922** · July 14th, 2004, 02:00 PM

wow they actually voted
I figured it'd be pigeonholed considering its an election year

Glad it was defeated though

at least for now :/

**Theophylact** · July 14th, 2004, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by vass0922

wow they actually voted
I figured it'd be pigeonholed considering its an election year

Well, they voted not to vote... I assume the Republican leadership will interpret that as a vote against the Sanctity of Marriage, and campaign on it, at least in places where it'll play well.

But the box turtles can breathe a sigh of relief.

**osprey4** · July 14th, 2004, 03:53 PM

I'm all for the states deciding for themselves. The only problem is that the current judicial climate renders state legislatures irrelevant when it comes to matters such as this.

**Harold7** · July 14th, 2004, 05:06 PM

Sen. Kerry and Edwards were conspicuous in their absence... apparently too gutless to take a stand one way or the other.

osprey4 has it right, the federal judiciary has rendered the 10th Amendment and the concept of State's Rights meaningless.

**tony_j15** · July 14th, 2004, 05:07 PM

ditto osprey. In MO, we're gonna vote on it in the primary (august). problem is it will probably get appealed all the way to the supreme court and ruled down

Whatever happened to states rights? oh yeah, that was before the civil war

**Theophylact** · July 14th, 2004, 05:25 PM

Might I point out that it's the Republicans who are trying to push through a Constitutional amendment to take jurisdiction over marriage away from the states and make it a Federal issue? Oh, yeah, I forgot: one's "fundamental principles" depend on the desired outcome, don't they?

**Ritalin Kid** · July 14th, 2004, 06:00 PM

I honestly don't see what the big deal is? If the government has the authority to say who can and cannot be married then religion should not be a factor regardless if it involves the state or the federal government. Seperation of Church and State right? I say that if the marriage is going to be recoginized by the state and federal government then the right to marry should extend to straight and gay couples.

**Bovon** · July 14th, 2004, 06:07 PM

Maybe I live too far into the past to understand all this..but, for the life of me.. I cannot understand why two men or women would want to marry..

What does a marriage do for these people that simply living together and doing their thing do for them?

**Ritalin Kid** · July 14th, 2004, 06:27 PM

I cannot understand why two men or women would want to marry..

That's probably because you are not gay..

What does a marriage do for these people that simply living together and doing their thing do for them?

More than likely gives them the same satifaction and happiness that it does for straight couples.

(Just for the record I am not gay but I do believe that gays should be entitled to the same rights as straight people.)

**CraigK** · July 14th, 2004, 07:15 PM

I recently read in my local newspaper a great quote on this subject. it went something like this: If President Bush is pushing this ammendment to uphold the sanctity of marriage, why not make an ammendment banning divorces?

I am for anyone who wants to get married should be allowed, gay or straight.

**MTAtech** · July 14th, 2004, 07:51 PM

Originally Posted by Harold7

Sen. Kerry and Edwards were conspicuous in their absence... apparently too gutless to take a stand one way or the other.

It couldn't possibly be that two guys running for president and VP who were 1,000 miles away didn't need to fly back for this procedural vote. This wasn't a vote on the main issue. It was a procedural vote where 12% of the Republicans voted against it.
Apart from being 'gutless' both Kerry and Edwards have clearly stated that they are against gay marriage but against a Constitutional amendment. They are taking the classic conservative view that this is a state matter.

**Harold7** · July 14th, 2004, 09:02 PM

If being on the campaign circuit is a valid excuse to avoid Senatorial duties, shouldn't they have resigned from the Senate before running for different federal offices and let Mass. and NC have representation in the Senate?

98 other senators did their constitutional duty and showed up for a vote and, even though it was just procedural, isn't that what they get paid (and are sworn) to do as senators?

To be consistent, I believe any Senator or Representative (no matter which party) who is running for a different federal office should be required to resign from their present office before being eligible to run for another.

**J-Excel** · July 14th, 2004, 09:34 PM

Another anti-gay bashing thread?

**vass0922** · July 14th, 2004, 09:59 PM

would you prefer another gay bashing thread?
There are is a wide assortment of them to bask in.

**J-Excel** · July 14th, 2004, 10:10 PM

As there shuold be. I would hope there were many more people opposed to gay marriage than would be for it. It's just plain wrong. It's been wrong for thousands of years. No need to throw morality out the window now.

**John Prophet** · July 14th, 2004, 10:16 PM

unfortunately J, the concept of "right" or "wrong" are just to..err, well..."absolute" for our relativistic society

**sao95** · July 14th, 2004, 10:16 PM

Originally Posted by Bovon

Maybe I live too far into the past to understand all this..but, for the life of me.. I cannot understand why two men or women would want to marry..

What does a marriage do for these people that simply living together and doing their thing do for them?

because if they live together without being married they'd be living in sin :P)

**J-Excel** · July 14th, 2004, 10:31 PM

But if they're married, they're living in government endorsed sin. I don't want my government endorsing immorality.

**Smidley** · July 14th, 2004, 11:06 PM

Anti-gay marriage is outright civil injustice. Why should they not enjoy the same rights as any other American. Are they not human beings? What gives the government the right to interpret the already misunderstood, misinterpreted, miswritten and outdated Bible?

Polygamy and incest are laws that apply to everyone, gay or straight. Anti-gay marriage is taking a select group of people and telling them that they can't participate in the same rights as everyone else.

Can you tell that I'm an atheistic agnostic?