Anti-gay amendment soundly defeated

[billvon 2,476]

Good news for civil rights - not only was the senate unable to muster the 2/3 majority required for approving a constitutional amendment, they could not even muster a simple majority to prevent a cancellation of discussion. The vote to scuttle the bill was 50-48, with six republicans voting to scuttle it.

[Muenkel 0]

Who were the two senators missing, Kerry and Edwards?

The results of this vote was expected. However, it does not change the fact that most polls show that 66% of Americans oppose gay marriages.

_________________________________________
Chris

[jumper03 0]

I saw a few snippets and sound bites on the news last night and they got me wondering.

Two of the senators said it was mostly for kids because they need a mom and a dad. Define a mom - is it just the presence of a vagina???

Maybe they mean a kid should have two parents but what about families where one parent dies - should those families be outlawed? Or divorced couples where one parent is estranged - outlaw those too?

The mom and dad argument for that amendment just seemed to me to be a veil for bigotry.

Jump

Scars remind us that the past is real

[quade 3]

66% huh . . . wierdly convenient that you'd choose that number.

Can ya prove it? Or even back that up with a poll? Even a FoxNews Poll? Because I think you're -way- off the mark. http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

BTW, 66% is still not quite two thirds.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[peregrinerose 0]

I think that regardless of stance on gay marriage, the amendment thing is just plain stupid. Marital law is by state, not federal government, and to change that just isn't right. The reasoning behind it is silly, how does two men having relations affect the strength of my marriage with my husband in any way? (unless of course my husband decides to go have fun with another guy??).

Can't say I'm crazy about the term 'marriage' since that connotates a religious sacrament (even though many are not religious), but there should be an equivalent term/legal benefits for gays.

Jen

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Who were the two senators missing, Kerry and Edwards?

The results of this vote was expected. However, it does not change the fact that most polls show that 66% of Americans oppose gay marriages.

Sometimes, it's nice to see that politicians aren't simply rubber stamping stuff.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Muenkel 0]

Nice spin there Paul. First, I did not pick 66% to infer a 2/3rds majority.

In regard to the polls you posted, the questions were mostly geared to a constitutional amendment. I never claimed that 66% were in favor of an amendment. Maybe folks prefer to leave it up to States rights. Also, the polls you linked showed that perhaps my number was a little low. If you look at them again, it could be about 72%.

Chris

[Nightingale 0]

I'd venture to say a large portion of the population didn't support desegregation of public schools either.

[craichead 0]

Quote

Can't say I'm crazy about the term 'marriage' since that connotates a religious sacrament (even though many are not religious), but there should be an equivalent term/legal benefits for gays.

I'm a bit confused by this statement...are you saying that if a union isn't religious, you don't think it should be called a marriage?

_Pm

__
"Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

[quade 3]

Quote

If you look at them again, it could be about 72%.

Which one are you looking at -- because I'm not finding it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Nightingale 0]

I don't.

I think ANY union sanctioned by the state should be called what it is. a "Civil Union".

Marriage is a religious sacrament and should be administered by churches, not government officials, and should have no legal standing whatsoever.

If someone wishes, they should be able to have both a civil union (with all the perks: tax breaks, inheritance rights, etc...) and a religious marriage performed in their church within the contraints of that church's doctrine.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I'm a bit confused by this statement...are you saying that if a union isn't religious, you don't think it should be called a marriage?

That sounds good. Marriage is a religious sacrament. For governmental, administrative, wills, legal partnership, etc - call it something else. Keep the two separated.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[chuteless 1]

TOO BAD>!!!!!!!!!



Bill Cole

[happythoughts 0]

Personally, I think this was an attempt to get the Dems to vote for it. Then the Reps were going to create an ad, "See what your Dem official did?".

If they vote it down, they aren't supporting the party platform. If they vote for it, the Reps hold it up in front of the church pews.

It's kind of like setting up a fork in chess.


(edit to correct to mean what I meant to begin with)

[craichead 0]

Quote

That sounds good. Marriage is a religious sacrament. For governmental, administrative, wills, legal partnership, etc - call it something else. Keep the two separated.

Okay...my husband AndyMan and I were united in a civil ceremony last October. So my husband and I don't have a marriage just because it wasn't a religious ceremony?

And let me state ahead of time that I am a female even though I don't "post like a she."

_Pm

__
"Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

[jumper03 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm a bit confused by this statement...are you saying that if a union isn't religious, you don't think it should be called a marriage?

That sounds good. Marriage is a religious sacrament. For governmental, administrative, wills, legal partnership, etc - call it something else. Keep the two separated.

agreed

Scars remind us that the past is real

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

I'd venture to say a large portion of the population didn't support desegregation of public schools either.

You could also say a huge portion of the population did not support inter racial marriages back in the day. Didn't Alabama have a law banning interracial marriages, even though it was not enforced it was still in the books.

[Nightingale 0]

yep. they finally got rid of it not too long ago. Its sad when the courts have to force people to recognize the civil rights of others, but that's one of the reasons why they exist.

nobody looks twice at desegregated schools now, or interracial marriages. I'd venture to say the same about gay marriage 15-20 years after its legalized.

[billvon 2,476]

>Or divorced couples where one parent is estranged - outlaw those too?

Good point. If the point is to alter the constitution to strengthen families - add a constitutional amendment to outlaw divorce. Would do FAR more to strengthen conventional families.

[Nightingale 0]

the state still calls it a marriage, and they probably shouldn't. it's a civil ceremony, so it should be a civil union. marriage is a religious sacrament and should be dealt with by religions. However, its your union, so use whatever definition you're comfortable with, of course.

[crwtom 0]

Quote

Marriage is a religious sacrament.

so what do you make of millions of married atheists and agnostics.

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

[billvon 2,476]

>so what do you make of millions of married atheists and agnostics.

People who have a civil union, and who do not believe their union has a religious aspect.

[panzwami 0]

Quote

Even a FoxNews Poll?

Is that comment meant to imply that a FoxNews poll will automatically be inaccurate?

[quade 3]

Quote

Is that comment meant to imply that a FoxNews poll will automatically be inaccurate?

Their results are -inconsistant- with other polling sources and those inconsistancies are consistantly skewed toward the right.

All one need do is look at the data and this becomes fairly obvious.

Go to http://www.pollingreport.com/ and look at a bunch of different polls. I think you'll see what I mean.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[craichead 0]

I can see what you're saying about differentiating a gov't civil union vs. a religious sacrament, but why does the semantics of it make a difference if I can still call the union what I want? If we're going to go by your definition that marriage is a purely religious institution, Andy and I are not married. Neither are my sister and brother-in-law, nor my mother and father. Which of you would like to tell them that they're not really married?

The next time somebody asks Andy and me if we're married, we should say, "No, it turns out that we're not because some people think that marriage is a purely religious institution. Since Andy and I were united in a civil ceremony, the proper designation would be that we are civilly united. Our marriage is a sham!"

Marriage is a social construct. It doesn't belong to religions or to the government. It belongs to the people who choose to commit their lives to each other with a marriage ceremony, whether it be a civil union or a religious ceremony.

_Pm

__
"Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)