Senate officially opens debate on Gay Marriage Amendment.

[Thorn]

Senate Opens Debate on Gay Marriage Ban

By MARY DALRYMPLE, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Senate Republicans opened debate Friday on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, highlighting their differences with Democrats on the emotionally charged matter.


The amendment aims to settle conflicts in state legislatures and courts over gay marriage by adding language to the Constitution that states, "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."


President Bush (news - web sites) planned to devote his Saturday radio address to the "sanctity of marriage," and the first hours of Senate debate hinted at the political pressure boiling under the issue.


Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., disparaged Republicans as using the Constitution as "a bulletin board for campaign sloganeering."


"Somehow we should find a way to restrain the impulse of some to politicize the Constitution," he said.


Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said it was a "phony argument" to accuse the GOP of bringing the issue to a vote to make an election-year statement. Hatch then accused Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) of holding inconsistent positions on marriage.


"This is the grand flip-flop, one of the grandest of all times," he said. "A person's head starts to spin trying to undo the logical mess."


Kerry and his running mate John Edwards (news - web sites) oppose gay marriage but support civil unions. Both oppose a constitutional amendment.


Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said voters will see the issue more starkly.


"I think a yes vote ... will be a vote in favor of traditional marriage, and a no vote or 'I didn't care enough to show up' vote will be perceived as against traditional marriage," he said.


Democrats signaled they will not throw hurdles in front of the resolution, paving the way for a vote on the amendment as early as next Wednesday.


"We are ready to rock and roll on the debate on this," said Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev.


Sen. Wayne Allard, the Colorado Republican who drafted the amendment, conceded that it is supported by only about half the Senate — well less than the two-thirds needed to approve a change in the Constitution.


The vote puts Democrats and Republicans on the spot. One senator acknowledged the political risk in trying to walk a line supporting both traditional marriage and gay rights.


"I intend to be your champion on many issues in the future, if you want me," Republican Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon, a leader in efforts to make attacks against gays a federal hate crime, said while addressing his comments to gay and lesbian voters.


"But on this one, I have to be able to get up in the morning and look in the mirror and be true to myself," he said.


If senators say they're ignoring politics, groups aligned for and against the amendment make no such claims.


MoveOn.org, a liberal political organization, released a television advertisement to coincide with next week's debate that says President Bush called for the amendment as a diversion from more pressing problems.

"He's using the politics of hate to distract us from the real issues," said the group's executive director, Peter Schurman. "He wants to move America backwards by enshrining discrimination in the U.S. Constitution."

A coalition of conservative organizations supporting the amendment delivered more than 1 million signatures on petitions, a visible stack of boxes showing voters in support of the marriage amendment, and promised to deliver more.

"Americans from Arkansas to Utah see the urgency of this issue," said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins. "Now we are just waiting for the Capitol to catch up."

I'm worried about this. Tell me I have nothing to worry about.

[DeathByTheSword]

i just hope that it doesnt pass for everyone in the US and well everywhere...it is a major step back in human rights

[JimmyCracksCorn]

I doubt they'll rule against it, and if they do, I doubt it will change anything, since it will probably be contested by alot of states like MA.

[Gatekeeper]

If this amendment passes, it will be a staggering blow against the principles for which the United States of America claims to represent.

For the life of me, I *cannot* understand why some politicians are so hellbent on modifying our nation's oldest and most important document for the sake of damnable political fads. I will *never* support this sort of legislation because, to me, it means we're amending the U.S. Constitution to discriminate — perhaps not directly as in, "Gay people shall not be allowed to marry," but indirectly by defining what a marriage is — against a select group of people.

At one time, the U.S. Constitution did just that. It was back when slavery was legal, and a black person counted as less than one person when it came to the census. This time, it appears the "culture warriors" are hellbent on editing our grandest document to make sure gays and lesbians can never be officially married.

And don't think I'm some "liberal pinko," either. I'll be frank — the idea of two men getting it on in bed doesn't enthuse me one bit (with women it's different, but that's because I'm a man). But just because *I* may not necessarily like it doesn't give me carte blanche to alter the U.S. Constitution, does it?

On a related note, I just *love* how some folks claim that if gay marriage is legitimized, it will undermine traditional marriage. HOW THE HELL DOES THAT COMPUTE? Are you — generally speaking here — saying that you're going to cheat on your spouse because there's a gay family in the neighborhood? If that's the case, you can't blame gay people for your own inability to stay true to the vows you made to your husband or wife!

The only way the institution of marriage will *ever* be truly demolished is if those partaking in it violate the vows they made, not because gays and lesbians can get married.

Gatekeeper

[DeathByTheSword]

gatekeeper what about the right to wear guns? and gun control? isnt that in the constition or is it in the declaration of independence? i can never remember?

(i am against this ammendment but what about this thingy then?)

[Agathon]

Vote for the CPUSA

[Gatekeeper]

I thought we were talking about the proposed amendment to define marriage. Where do guns come into play? Is this an attempt to link an existing amendment with the proposed one?

As it stands, I believe that various state National Guard units represent the militia mentioned in the Second Amendment. And I don't have problems with people keeping pistols or hunting rifles in their homes.

Gatekeeper

[Agathon]

The Iraqui jihadis are a militia, the NG are too much like a real army.

Besides, if the "militia" is armed by the state, there is no reason for people to keep guns in their homes. The statute makes clear that it the reason for allowing gun ownership is connected with the fighting efficacy of the militia. So - private ownership of firearms may be prohibited for safety reasons.

Excellent anti-gun argument GK.

[Guynemer]

This amendment has zero chance of passing. Zilch.

The Repubs are only bringing it to floor in order to campaign on the issue in November.

[Gatekeeper]

That's about the extent of it, Guynemer. Y'see, party loyalty comes first. And if they can play an issue up to the point where it divides the public, but it gains their party power, then there's nothing wrong with it. This seems to hold true for any party ... I've said it before, and I'll say it again, if the center cannot hold, then we're all screwed.

Gatekeeper

[Thorn]

Does anyone have any figures on the political and financial power of the groups supporting and opposing this amendment?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper

And don't think I'm some "liberal pinko," either. I'll be frank — the idea of two men getting it on in bed doesn't enthuse me one bit (with women it's different, but that's because I'm a man). But just because *I* may not necessarily like it doesn't give me carte blanche to alter the U.S. Constitution, does it?

Good post overall -- but a couple of quibbles. You do not have be enthusiastic about having sex with someone of the same gender in order to sympathize with concerns of gay society. So there is no need for this qualifying defense, "I agree with gays, but . . ."

And secondly, you are not "enthused" about two men having sex with one another, not because you are a man, but because you are straight.

[Solly]

I agree with gays, but only if they hide their behaviours away from the public sphere. Is that tolerant enough for you?

[MrFun]

No, that's not tolerant, since you are still wanting to impose double-standards when it comes to public behavior and open honesty.

[Solly]

No. Everyone is ajudged by the same standards.