The attempt to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage has failed in the Senate. Supporters say the effort is not dead even though they actually lost a vote in the totals from the last time they tried to get it passed.
Supporters had predicted they would gain votes this year over the last time the issue came up, in 2004, but actually lost one vote for the amendment in a procedural test tally.
Wednesday's 49-48 vote fell 11 short of the 60 required to send the matter for an up-or-down tally. The 2004 vote was 50-48.
A majority of Americans define marriage as a union of a man and a woman, as the proposed amendment does, according to a poll out this week by ABC News. But an equal majority opposes amending the Constitution on this issue, the poll found.
I'm on the record as saying I thought this was a losing move one way or the other. One thing that is really troubling is the public statement Ted Kennedy made about this:
"The Republican leadership is asking us to spend time writing bigotry into the Constitution," said Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, which legalized gay marriage in 2003. "A vote for it is a vote against civil unions, against domestic partnership, against all other efforts for states to treat gays and lesbians fairly under the law."
In response, Hatch fumed: "Does he really want to suggest that over half of the United States Senate is a crew of bigots?"
Forty-five of the 50 states have acted to define traditional marriage in ways that would ban same-sex marriage — 19 with constitutional amendments and 26 with statutes.
That is really over the top. Obviously, most states are against this, is every one of them bigoted, too?
Obviously, most states are against this, is every one of them bigoted, too?
As a point of logic, how is this exculpatory? Most states and most people in the South supported segregation, but that didn’t mean the policy wasn’t bigoted.
Some people may be bigots about this. Are all of them?
I have no idea. But I’ve yet to hear an argument against gay marriage that isn’t nonsensical, so I suspect opposition to it is based on a basic revulsion to homosexuality.
So becuase you don’t see their point, they’re all wrong?
What is their point?
Some have religious convictions, Sven. Some have problems with changing the basic rules society has functioned under for millennia. I actually object to social engineering via judicial activism (not just for this issue, but in general).
Again, “religious convictions,” “the basic rules of society” and bigotry are not mutually exclusive. Proponents of segregation and anti-miscegenation laws also justified their position on religious/traditional grounds.
Religious groups and individuals I want to know why constitutional prohibitions on gay marriage make sense as public policy. What threat to society does gay marriage pose that justifies discrimination?
Geez, even the “academic” anti-gay marriage argument is no more than vacuous window dressing for “ew, homos are icky.”
What of the argument that imposition of social engineering through judicial activism, then?