LGBT Bush 'disappointed' by gay marriage ban's defeat

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by mamoru, Jul 15, 2004.

  1. mamoru

    mamoru New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2002
    Messages:
    15,408
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    New York Shitty
    http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/15/samesex.marriage/index.html

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush says he is "disappointed" that a move to effectively ban same-sex marriage was "temporarily blocked" in the Senate, and he is urging the House to take up the matter.

    "Activist judges and local officials in some parts of the country are not letting up in their efforts to redefine marriage for the rest of America, and neither should defenders of traditional marriage flag in their efforts," Bush said in a statement.

    "It is important for our country to continue the debate on this important issue, and I urge the House of Representatives to pass this amendment."

    Efforts to pass a constitutional amendment to effectively ban gay marriage failed in the Senate on Wednesday afternoon.

    Opponents denounced the failed effort as a "political tool" during an election year.

    "Today, we saw President Bush and the Republican leadership attempt to divide America and it backfired, instead dividing their own party," said Cheryl Jacques, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights organization. "We saw the politics of distraction fail and fail handily."

    Supporters of the amendment vowed to keep fighting for the measure.

    "This is a long :mamoru: process," said Republican Sen. Wayne Allard of Colorado, sponsor of the amendment. "Nobody on our side, I think, ever felt for a minute that this was going to be a one-shot deal and it was going to be over with at that particular point in time."

    The proposed amendment, championed by Bush, was killed for this session after a procedural vote to move the measure to the Senate floor for final consideration failed 48-50 -- 12 votes shy of the 60 required by Senate rules.

    Six Republicans -- including Sen. John McCain of Arizona -- joined 43 Democrats and one independent to defeat the measure. Three Democrats and 45 Republicans voted for it.

    Republicans had expected to muster the votes needed to at least advance the measure, if not the 67 required to pass it. They also expected to force the presumptive Democratic presidential ticket -- Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina -- to vote against it.

    A constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress to pass. Then the proposal would need the approval of three-fourths of the state legislatures to be ratified.

    Both Kerry and Edwards were on record opposing the measure but decided not to return for the procedural vote since their votes weren't needed to defeat it. They were the only senators not voting.

    Kerry, who was in Boston, issued a statement saying the Senate floor "should only be used for the common good, not issues designed to divide us for political purposes."

    Edwards, at a campaign rally in Iowa, said "the president and the vice president tried to use our Constitution and the amendment of that Constitution as a political tool, and the United States Senate, they said, 'No. We will not accept it.' "

    A Bush campaign aide responded, "It takes a special kind of senator to attack others over a vote that they don't show up for." :)greddy: argument)

    Bush did not directly address the amendment's defeat during a bus tour of Wisconsin, but he reiterated his opposition to same-sex marriage during a rally in Ashwaubenon, a Green Bay suburb.

    "We stand for institutions like marriage and family which are the foundations of our society," he said, drawing thunderous applause from the partisan crowd. "We stand for judges who strictly and faithfully interpret the law, instead of legislating from the bench."

    Social conservatives have been pushing hard for the measure since May, when the highest court in Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriages in the Bay State.

    Polls show a solid majority of Americans are against legalizing same-sex marriages, although the gap narrows when it comes to amending the Constitution.

    Varying views
    Bush's stance was echoed by Republican Sen. Bill Frist of Tennessee during debate. "Will activist judges not elected by the American people destroy the institution of marriage, or will the people protect marriage as the best way to raise children? My vote is with the people," said the majority leader

    Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah said the amendment would simply preserve a fundamental institution "that a few unelected judges are trying to radically change." It's not a question of discrimination against gays, he said.

    The amendment, as proposed by Allard, would add these two sentences to the Constitution:

    "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."


    Some Republicans objected to the second sentence, saying it was so ambiguous that it also could prevent states from allowing gays and lesbians to join in civil unions.

    Other senators expressed concern that the measure would usurp the states' traditional dominion over family law, and some questioned whether it was necessary.

    Republican Sen. John Sununu of New Hampshire, who voted against moving the measure forward, said it was too early to make the assumption that judges might strike down laws such as the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act and 38 similar state statutes that define marriage as a union only between a man and a woman.

    "Naturally, there exist concerns about what activist courts might do to undermine these rights and the Defense of Marriage Act," Sununu said in a statement. "But it is premature to amend the Constitution based upon a hypothetical scenario."

    McCain went even further, calling the amendment "antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans." (Full story)

    Besides Sununu and McCain, the other Republicans who broke with the GOP leadership on the issue were Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado.

    The three Democrats voting to advance the measure were Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Zell Miller of Georgia and Ben Nelson of Nebraska. (figures they'd be from those bumblefuck states)

    Afterward, proponents tried to put the best face on the defeat, vowing to press forward until they win.

    "I think we are going to have a long and extended discussion in the country about what is marriage. ... We won on substance. We lost on procedure," said Republican Sam Brownback of Kansas, noting that Democrats were "definitely" not listening to their constituents.

    CNN's Craig Broffman and Ed Henry contributed to this report.

    mamoru's notes: I really, really hope we win this battle. I can't in a million years see why people would be AGAINST gay marriage. Religion aside, if two people want to join together in the eyes of the law, then they should be allowed. No questions asked.
     
  2. RedGoober4Life

    RedGoober4Life New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    DTW
    Was the vote even to "ban" gay marriages, or to prevent gay-marriages in other states to force another state to accept the marriage?

    Another waste of your taxpayer money.
     
  3. Sam Gamgee

    Sam Gamgee Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right. OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Messages:
    78,919
    Likes Received:
    64
    Location:
    Western MA
    the vote was to add a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in the entire nation.
     
  4. ExDelayed

    ExDelayed New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,689
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ogden, UT
    I could give a damn what the President's opinion is. He was elected to run the country, not to put his 'values' on it.

    IMHO, if a bill was put in front of him to make civil unions legal in all fifty states, but making sure it had the clause 'a civil union will have all the rights, responsibilities and benefits of a marriage' it would probably be able to get through a lot easier. I would think that a lot of people would love it to go through just so they could quit hearing about gay marriage.

    I know, seperate is never equal, but at this point in time, we should take what we can get and be happy with it. We can always go for more later. If that marriage ban had went through, we would all be fucked. :(
     
  5. RedGoober4Life

    RedGoober4Life New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    DTW
    Bhauck...I don't want to be married. Ever. ew.
     
  6. ExDelayed

    ExDelayed New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,689
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ogden, UT
    Right now I could care less about marriage, but if...
     
  7. CoCo

    CoCo ...is a Queer Don!! OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2004
    Messages:
    12,343
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Maryland ; the land of Mary's...
    House Votes on Federal Gay Marriage Bill

    WASHINGTON - The Republican-led House voted Thursday to prevent federal courts from ordering states to recognize gay marriages anctioned by other states.

    The Marriage Protection Act was adopted by a 233-194 vote, buoyed by backing from the Bush administration. Last week, the Senate dealt gay marriage opponents a setback by failing to advance a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex unions.

    Federal judges, unelected and given lifetime appointments, "must not be allowed to rewrite marriage policy for the states," Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., said.

    Democrats said the bill was an election-year distraction, calling it an unconstitutional attack on gays in America and the federal judiciary. They said it would set a precedent that Congress could use to shield any future legislation from federal judicial review.

    "They couldn't amend the Constitution last week so they're trying to desecrate and circumvent the Constitution this week," Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said.

    The legislation faces long odds in the closely divided Senate, but were it to become law, gays and lesbians seeking to have their marriages recognized could seek help only from state courts.

    It would strip the Supreme Court and other federal courts of their jurisdiction to rule on challenges to state bans on gay marriages under a provision of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act. That law defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and says states are not compelled to recognize gay marriages that take place in other states.

    "Marriage is under attack," said Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., referring to the Massachusetts state court decision allowing same-sex marriages. The legislation is needed, Sensenbrenner said, to prevent Massachusetts law from being applied nationwide.

    A parade of Republican speakers lamented the unbridled power of federal judges to thwart majority will, although no federal court has yet ruled on the 1996 law.

    Rep. John Hostettler, R-Ind., the bill's author, likened the Supreme Court to the Soviet Politburo. "As few as five people in black robes can look at a particular issue and determine for the rest of us, insinuate for the rest of us that they are speaking as the majority will. They are not," Hostettler said.

    Democrats complained the legislation was being pushed to give a victory to gay marriage opponents before Congress leaves town at the end of the week for both parties' political conventions and a monthlong recess.

    Republicans are "undermining our Constitution today to get more votes in November," Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., said.

    The effect of the bill would be to single out gays and lesbians, barring them from going into federal court to seek to have their marriages recognized, several Democrats said.

    "We face no less than a sign on the courthouse door: 'You may not defend your constitutional rights in this court. You may not see equal protection here,'" said Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., the House's lone declared lesbian. "Today, the 'you' is gay and lesbian citizens. But who would be next?"

    Democrats said the bill's supporters were trying to change the subject from GOP failures to pass a budget and other major legislation.

    Many speakers said they believe the legislation is unconstitutional, but legal scholars said the constitutional issue is unresolved.

    While Republicans defended states' rights, Democrats said the phrase recalled Southern opposition to desegregation, which was propelled by a series of federal court rulings.

    Some Republicans also cited their desire to avoid setting a precedent that could used by a Congress controlled by Democrats to satisfy their allies or by lawmakers who wanted to shield future unconstitutional legislation from federal court review.
    ___


    The bill is H.R. 3313.
    ___

    More Info:
    http://thomas.loc.gov/
     
  8. Killgunner

    Killgunner Guest

    cliffs....
     
  9. NOVAJock

    NOVAJock Modded & Underrated

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2002
    Messages:
    15,260
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Nowhere in particular
    Republicans suck. :o
     
  10. CoCo

    CoCo ...is a Queer Don!! OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2004
    Messages:
    12,343
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Maryland ; the land of Mary's...
    ...and not even a good suck.
     
  11. Killgunner

    Killgunner Guest

    :rofl: :greddy:
     
  12. marxwa99

    marxwa99 Boom Squad

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2001
    Messages:
    4,493
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    B. Lake, WA
    hehe, didnt the house of reps pass it though?
     
  13. CoCo

    CoCo ...is a Queer Don!! OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2004
    Messages:
    12,343
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Maryland ; the land of Mary's...
    Married Gay Man Has Passport Trouble
    July 27, 2004


    SPRINGFIELD, Mass. -- A man who married his partner of 23 years after gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts now is having trouble getting a new passport.

    Donald Henneberger, formerly Donald Smith, recently received a letter from the National Passport Center in Portsmouth, N.H., denying his request for a name change on his passport. The center said it would not recognize a marriage license for a same-sex couple as proof of a name change.

    The center addressed the letter to "Mr. Henneberger."

    Henneberger married his partner Arthur Henneberger in May, when same-sex marriages became legal in the Bay State. On the marriage license, the couple checked a box that automatically changes the last names of the partners to whatever they request.

    The letter from the National Passport Center cites the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which states a marriage can only be between a man and a woman, and a spouse can only refer to a person of the opposite sex.

    Donald Henneberger said he had no trouble with the Social Security Administration, another federal agency, when he requested a card in his new name.

    He and his partner now have gone to Probate Court to get further proof of Henneberger's name change.

    "The woman at Probate Court said, 'What do you want to do -- change your name to Henneberger? It's already Henneberger,'" Donald Henneberger said.

    Rep. Richard Neal's office advised the Hennebergers to return to court, and this time the court would initiate the name change. The couple had sought the Democratic congressman's help.

    "You have to publicize your intent, demonstrate that you are not changing your name for fraudulent purposes and then you have to appear before a judge," said Jennifer Levi, a professor at Western New England School of Law. She said the Probate Court name-change process is cumbersome.

    Henneberger balks at spending $180 in court fees and waiting for the eight-week process to run its course.

    "It's discriminatory," he said.

    A message left Tuesday with the federal Office of Passport Policy, Planning and Advisory Services was not immediately returned.


    ...Link=> HERE
     
  14. CoCo

    CoCo ...is a Queer Don!! OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2004
    Messages:
    12,343
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Maryland ; the land of Mary's...
    Interesting...

    Washington State Judge Voids Gay Marriage Ban
    - Jurist declares the state ban is not "legitimately or rationally related to any state interest."

    By Mary MacVean, Times Staff Writer

    Denying gay couples civil marriage violates their constitutional rights, a Washington state judge ruled today, a day after voters in Missouri approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages.

    "The court concludes that the exclusion of same-sex partners from civil marriage and the privileges attendant thereto is not rationally related to any legitimate or compelling state interest and is certainly not narrowly tailored toward such an interest," Judge William L. Downing of King County Superior Court wrote.

    He stayed his ruling pending review by the state Supreme Court.

    That means no marriage licenses can be issued until then, Jennifer Pizer, lead counsel for Lambda Legal Defense in the case, told Associated Press.

    Eight couples challenged the state's Defense of Marriage Act, which restricts marriage to a man and a woman.

    Arguing for the couples, attorney Bradley Bagshaw told Downing at a hearing last month that the act violates the state Constitution by depriving same-sex couples of the same privileges and immunities as other residents, and by depriving them of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

    The couples, the judge noted, "have already made a close personal commitment to be joined together in a bond that is intended to be permanent."

    Forty-three states, including California, have laws or court rulings prohibiting same-sex marriage.

    The issue rose to national prominence when the Massachusetts high court legalized gay and lesbian weddings in a ruling that became effective in May. Voters in 10 other states face ballot measures in coming months similar to Missouri's.

    As Massachusetts legislators tried in vain to find a way around the court ruling, officials in San Francisco, Oregon, New York and elsewhere began marrying same-sex couples with fanfare, even without clear legal authority. Images of gay and lesbian weddings began to appear in newspapers and on TV. Courts soon put a stop to those ceremonies but a passionate, polarizing debate had taken hold.

    Missouri already had a law banning gay marriages, but activists began pushing for a constitutional amendment after the Massachusetts ruling. On Tuesday, about 70% of voters agreed to add this sentence to the Missouri Constitution: "To be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman."

    Missouri was considered a crucial test of public sentiment. It has an electorate evenly split between liberals and conservatives. But the huge margin of victory indicated that support for Amendment 2 cut across party and ideological lines that have divided the state as they have the nation.
     
  15. Coco, right now I was looking at some of the replies you made(promise made by me to watch every word you say) in this forum, and I must say, you are not as stupid as I previously thought. Indeed, you are a 'smart' American.

    Well, the 'not even a good suck' part did kind of suck, but that doesn't matter.;) Can't wait to give you more messages on AIM.
     
  16. CoCo

    CoCo ...is a Queer Don!! OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2004
    Messages:
    12,343
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Maryland ; the land of Mary's...
    ...you wouldn't be the first stalker I've had. Something about the combination of brains, beauty, and money brings out the stalker in others... :dunno:, but stay crazy! :ugh2:
     
  17. NOVAJock

    NOVAJock Modded & Underrated

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2002
    Messages:
    15,260
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Nowhere in particular
    :sleep: :wavey:
     

Share This Page