News & Politics - Protection of Marriage Act

Crossbow · 07-13-2004, 02:18 PM

CALL YOUR SENATOR TODAY!

The Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman at a federal level, but does not ban states from recognizing gay marriages.

TOMORROW, the Senate is voting on the Protection of Marriage Act, which bans any state from recognizing gay marriages.

Look up your Senators� phone numbers here. You have two Senators; call both of them.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contac...nators_cfm.cfm

Read the Defense of Marriage Act, Bill H.R. 3396 here:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm
Read a summary of it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

Read the Protection of Marriage Act, Bill H.R. 3313 here:
http://www.theorator.com/bills108/hr3313.html

Register to vote here:
http://www.fec.gov/votregis/vr.htm

pacifierrocks · 07-13-2004, 05:46 PM

If this gets passed then i will be very surprised and angry.

migamoo · 07-13-2004, 10:31 PM

I won't be surprised at all if this is passed. Bush wants this country to ban gay marriage, which i think is wrong, and he will have it done by any means.

UnsilentMajorty · 07-14-2004, 05:41 AM

Just remember though...

This is a "hot button" issue and with the election coming up neither side -- Believe it or not -- Really wants to committ to this Bill because they may then alienate a lot of voters if they do and that could concievably cost their side the election.

Obviously, some want this pushed through... But again, it's more the extremists (Right Wing and Religous Conservatives) more than the mainstream Republicans and Democrats this time for precisely the reason I stated above.

On a personal note...

As a straight person, I have no problem with Gay marriage...

But I think there are far more important issues that should be at the forefront of the election as well... Which is how a lot of people feel on both sides (indifferent) since the majority of the voting constituent are straight...

So, unless you are Gay this has little bearing on what is, or wil happen to you and while I understand what it means for Gays (more legislation to make them second class citizens at the hands of the Religious Right)...

What I and Pacifierrock said before will most likely be the outcome: It won't pass and will be shoved aside until after Novemember...

summerbug · 07-14-2004, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by UnsilentMajorty
Just remember though...

This is a "hot button" issue and with the election coming up neither side -- Believe it or not -- Really wants to committ to this Bill because they may then alienate a lot of voters if they do and that could concievably cost their side the election.

I think you are correct about some Republicans not really wanting it pushed through when they are running for re-election just in case they might alienate some swing voters. All they really want is to rally the conservative base and probably try to force it through at a later date.

Protection of Marriage Act? The name implies that same sex marriage is somehow threatening to opposite sex marriage. WHAT. EVER. No one's marriage should have anything to do with your marriage in my opinion.

Timeo · 07-14-2004, 12:57 PM

DEFEAT!

Crossbow · 07-14-2004, 01:39 PM

It's no big secret that the entire thing was put on the floor to distract us from the important issues at hand. Nevertheless, there it is.

migamoo · 07-14-2004, 03:47 PM

well with 50 to 48 votes, the issue is gone for now.

Ashley

mh67511 · 07-14-2004, 03:49 PM

Well it wouldn't have gotten passed. I think they needed a 2/3 vote which would never happen anyways. Oh well. Anyplace to see how each Senator voted on it?

migamoo · 07-14-2004, 03:52 PM

from cnn.com

Quote:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Efforts to pass a constitutional amendment that would effectively ban same-sex marriage failed in the Senate Wednesday afternoon, but supporters vowed to keep fighting for the measure.

"Ultimately, we will win this fight," said Republican Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas. "Marriage is the union of a man and a woman."

The proposed amendment was killed for this session after a procedural vote to move the measure to the Senate floor failed 48-50, or 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.

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," said Cheryl Jacques, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights organization. "We saw the politics of distraction fail and fail handily."

Kerry was in Boston Wednesday and did not vote, but he expressed opposition in a written statement.

"Throughout history, amending our Constitution -- the foundation of the nation's values and ideals -- has been serious business," he said.

"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," Kerry said.

At a campaign rally in Iowa, Edwards noted that Republicans joined the Democratic leadership in rejecting the amendment.

"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 today said, 'No, we will not accept it,' " Kerry said.

Democratic Sen. Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the minority leader, echoed Kerry's sentiments.

"In 217 years, we've only amended that sacred document 17 times. There have been 11,000 separate attempts," Daschle said.

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.

Bush has championed the amendment and said it is necessary to defend the institution of marriage from "activist judges."

That view was expressed by Sen. Bill Frist of Tennessee during debate.

"It has become clear to legal scholars ... that same-sex marriage will be exported to all 50 states," said the majority leader.

"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," Frist said.

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.

"Nobody wants to discriminate against gays. We, simply put, want to preserve traditional marriage. Gays have a right to live the way they want, but they should not have the right to change the definition of traditional marriage," Hatch said.

The amendment, as originally proposed by Republican Sen. Wayne Allard of Colorado, 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.

McCain broke forcefully with Bush and the Senate GOP leadership Tuesday evening over the issue, taking to the Senate floor to call such an amendment unnecessary -- and un-Republican.

McCain said the amendment "will not be adopted by Congress this year, nor next year, nor any time soon until a substantial majority of Americans are persuaded that such a consequential action is as vitally important and necessary as the proponents feel it is today." (Full story)

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

migamoo · 07-14-2004, 03:55 PM

Just letting everyone know I edited the title. I think it needed it because they already voted.

n e r b l e · 07-15-2004, 03:27 AM

i know everyone on the board is going to disagree with me. that said, here goes

i have no problems w/ gay people. my best friend of 2 years was gay and he was / is awsome. and i think that gay people should have all the same rights in gov't as other couples. taxes, insurance, ect.

that said marriage is a religious thing. in the beggining of christinanity it was all about what you could do to bring yourself closer to God. being saved, baptism, and marriage. most christians are against gay marriage b/c in the bible it's all about a man and a woman. it's taking a religious ceremony and using it against them. state unions, government pacts, whatever. i'm a-okay with that. but calling it a marriage gives it the stigmata of having been oked by a church or religious organization and it's not. it would be like having neo-nazi given a bar mitzfah. (please excuse spelling).

give gays a way via the state to profess their death til they part love for each other. and leave the church out of it.

*Lauren · 07-15-2004, 05:41 AM

nerble, I have no problems with what you're saying. Forcing a church to go against what they believe in is wrong. But it should be able to be done as a secular way.

coconutlime · 07-15-2004, 06:02 AM

nerble: I don't disagree with you, however, marriage was originally a means to to combine land and wealth. The peasants didn't get married, it was the rich royality and aristocrats to preserve what they owned. It had nothing to do with religion and even as recently as Henry VIII, he dumped the Catholic church and created the Church of England to get what he wanted, and that was to divorce and remarry. I am more threatend by the fact that my neighbor could have guns and weapons in their house than if they were a gay couple that were legally married. It's a nice fantasy to think that all families consist of mom, dad and the 2.5 kids living happily, but we know that isn't true. I know more families that do not fit that model than ones that do.

Cress · 07-15-2004, 06:55 AM

If we give in to the right-wing Christians with this Marriage Amendment, it won't be long before they're asking for more and even taking away secular contracts and civil unions from gay couples too. Just look at what happened in Virginia. (See dyxlecis gril's post about Virginia on the last page of the Same Sex Marriage thread.)

It's the gays who need protection from the conservative activists who are trying to deny gays/lesbians as many rights as they can. We shouldn't be indifferent about this issue just because we're straight. If we believe in equal rights and want to allow gay/lesbian friends, family, etc. to have legal protection, be able to adopt, inherit, etc., we need to support them in this issue.


Fan Forum > General Discussion > News & Politics > Protection of Marriage Act