House Defeats Gay Marriage Ban Amendment
 

House Defeats Gay Marriage Ban Amendment
By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent

WASHINGTON - The House emphatically rejected a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage Thursday, the latest in a string of conservative pet causes advanced by Republican leaders in the run-up to Election Day.

The vote was 227-186, 49 votes shy of the two-thirds needed for approval of an amendment that President Bush backed but the Senate had previously scuttled.

"God created Adam and Eve, He didn't create Adam and Steve," said Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., on behalf of a measure that supporters said was designed to protect an institution as old as civilization itself.

Democrats countered that Republicans were motivated by election-year politics as much as anything, particularly since a Senate vote this year ended any immediate chance the amendment could be sent to the states for ratification.

Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the Democratic whip, accused GOP leaders of "raw political cynicism" and said they hoped to "create the fodder for a demagogic political ad."

Bush issued a statement expressing disappointment with the vote's outcome.

"Because activist judges and local officials in some parts of the country are seeking to redefine marriage for the rest of the country, we must remain vigilant in defending traditional marriage," the president said.

The measure drew the support of 191 Republicans and 36 Democrats. Voting against it were 158 Democrats, 27 Republicans and one independent.

The debate on the gay marriage amendment came a day after the House voted 250-171 to overturn a 28-year municipal ban on handgun ownership in the District of Columbia. And last week, Republicans forced a vote on legislation to protect the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance from court challenge. It passed, 247-173.

While both of those measures face uncertain prospects in the Senate, they — along with the gay marriage proposal — appeal to voting groups whose support Republicans are counting on in the Nov. 2 elections. Recent surveys in battleground states in the presidential race indicate roughly one-quarter of Bush's supporters say moral or family values are uppermost in their minds.

The gay marriage amendment said marriage in the United States "shall consist only of a man and a woman." It also would have required that neither the U.S. Constitution nor any state constitution "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."

Even among majority Republicans, the issue generated dissent.

Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, was the principal speaker on behalf of the measure, taking a role that is almost always reserved for the chairman of the committee with jurisdiction. In this case, though, the leadership bypassed the Judiciary Committee, and GOP officials said the panel's chairman, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., made clear he wanted no part of the debate. His spokesman did not immediately return a call for comment.

DeLay said the need for congressional action was "forced upon us by activist judges trying to legislate from the bench." He noted that under 1996 legislation passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton, marriage is defined as between a man of a woman.

"One would think this would be the end of the story. But it is not," DeLay said. The law is "under an incessant and coordinated attack in the federal courts," where he said judges feel a greater "responsibility to their own political ideology than the Constitution."

"The limitations of traditional marriage rest not on an intent to discriminate, but on what is most beneficial for society and children as evidenced by volumes of social science research," added Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo.

"Traditional marriage is worth preserving, because the nuclear family is far and away the best environment in which to raise children. Every child deserves both a father and a mother," said Musgrave, whose persistent advocacy for the measure has gained her national notice unusual for a first-term lawmaker.

Critics saw it differently.

"We feel love and we feel it in a way different than you," said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who is openly gay. "We feel it with someone of the same sex, male or female, and we look at your institution of marriage and we see the joy it brings. How do we hurt you when we share it?"

Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass. quoted Vice President Dick Cheney — who has a gay daughter — as saying, "The fact of the matter is that we live in a free society and freedom means freedom for everybody."

Public polls show strong opposition to gay marriage, but opinion is about evenly divided regarding a federal constitutional amendment to ban it.

At the same time, voters in 11 states will decide the fate of proposed amendments to their state constitutions this fall, and opponents of bans on gay marriage concede they will be difficult to stop.

The issue has gained prominence this year. Massachusetts residents have had first-in-the-nation rights to same sex marriages since May, the result of a ruling by the state's highest court. A judge in Washington recently struck down that state's ban on same-sex marriage.

Good grief. If I had a penny for every time some goober recited that quote, I'd..... well, I'd probably be Republican! ;)

Since Representative Roscoe P. Coltrane is using "Adam & Eve/not Adam & Steve" as the basis for backing the amendment to ban gay marriage, perhaps he'd like to explain to me how Adam, Eve, and their two sons populated the world. The best explanation I've ever been able to find, was that they did it incestuously.
So, does Roscoe therefore support incestuous marriages? After all, it would seem the bible doesn't frown on those. :rolleyes:


Republicans like Ms. Muskrat would rather have children living parent-less in orphanages, than have a gay or lesbian couple raising them.

So I guess that means that having no parents at all, is better than having one parent or same-sex parents, in the eyes of Republican politicians.
Good to know.

And if she wants to cite "social science research," then she must have conveniently overlooked the fact that children raised in a loving, stable home... no matter whether there's only one parent present, or if there are two parents of the same-gender... have been proven to be far more well-adjusted in both childhood and in their adult lives, than those who are raised in un-loving and un-stable homes, by two heterosexual parents. Or those raised with no parents at all.

They are so damned stubborn about their "two parent/nuclear family/all-hetero" environments, that they refuse to admit when they're off-base. Even if "social science research" doesn't back up their claims.

There is a woman I am very close to who was raised in a "nuclear" two-parent traditional family. Everyone thought it was the perfect childhood. Two parents, two daughters, everything was lovely.

Unfortunately, what no one knew was the father delighted in sexually abusing the two daughters, with the consent of the mother. Yet on the surface, everything was lovely.

The woman went on to marry at a very early age. She married an abusive man, but isn't that the way marriage is supposed to be? Finally, after 20+ years she had the courage to leave. At that point, she had had enough of men and realized that she had been hiding a dark secret of her own for many years. She was a lesbian.

So said woman went on to find love and stability in a relationship with another woman. They decided to have a child together. That child is now almost 4 and the light of their lives. He lives with two moms who adore him. The moms know that it will be tough to raise him in this environment, but there is enough love in the household to weather the storm.

I have a very difficult time swallowing the "one mother/one father" statement when I know of this story. This child will live with more parental love than his mom ever did. HOW IS THAT WRONG????? Simple. It's not. If some of those holier-than-thou types who claim to know what is right for everyone had walked a mile in the shoes of an abused child, they could not and would not ever back the gay marriage amendment.

I cannot believe he actually used the "Adam and steve" thing..what a loser..

Chris

The simple fact is gay people make straight people cringe. Even though many straight people have gay friends, many straight people still consider gay people an abberation to be abhored or at least disrespected. They may not express this out loud, but they feel it on some level. AND- the gay community knows this but never really publicly admits it, and wisely so IMO. A good example of this thought is that the ads supporting the proponents of gay marriage (usually submitted by a gay rights organization) never ever show two guys kissing or holding hands or at the alter. Although they claim society is ready to or should accept this, etc., they know this turns most people's stomachs to some degree. Conversly, the proponents of Christian only marriage gleefully show two guys kissing, etc., because they know it will rally their troops. I mean look at this story about Jimmy Swaggart said last week:
_______________________________________________

In the broadcast, Swaggart was discussing his opposition to gay marriage when he said, "I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. And I'm going to be blunt and plain: If one ever looks at me like that, I'm going to kill him and tell God he died."

The comment drew laughter and applause from the congregation.

Wednesday, Swaggart said he's jokingly used the expression "killing someone and telling God he died" thousands of times, about all sorts of people. He said the expression is figurative, and not meant to harm. Swaggart also dismissed contentions from gay advocacy groups that such language encourages violence against gay men and lesbians.
________________________________________________

Let's assume ole Jimmy "I have SINNED" Swaggart really meant it as a joke (which I can assure he did not - he meant it as a slam against gays and he could care a less whether it causes violence :mad: ) - but let's assume it anyway. What does that humor tell us. It submit it tells us that most straight people feel the same way to some degree. Most, but certainly not all, straight men in general (AGAIN IN GENERAL :laugh: ) find the thought of another guy being sexually attracted to them at the least uncomfortable - this is based somewhat on nature, but I think mostly on the far Christian right's constant villifying of gay people as against God, usupers, etc. I submit many if not most (again not all) straight guys relate to finding the idea of beating up a gay guy who comes on to them or at least get the joke, which supports violence against gays on some level and goes back to the whole gay people are okay but just not around or to me line of thinking. So, until that is changed, I submit people will always in general (AGAIN IN GENERAL) think of gay people as this sort of tolerated second class citizen and that their whole cry for equal rights is just as silly as their limp wrists, which again they in the abtract do not in general really mind, but the same cannot be said when it effects them directly - when the direct effect happens, the so called socially liberal minds make a joke about beating up a gay guy.

Politicans understand this fear, ignorance, bias, etc., and use it to perpetuate their cause. BOTH sides do it - can you say Clinton as the great defender of gay rights :laugh: (I know I know Clinton did more than anyone else - but he used the issue and then failed to deliver on his promises and caved and compromised (gays in the military, DOMA, etc. ) to the detriminet of those he professed to champion - that cannot really be denied). The R's are just on the hate side IMO.

Food for Thought :cool:

If I had a dollar for every time a "straight" guy - yes, the typical jock womanizing stereotype that is the opposite of the typical limp-wristed gay stereotype - has come on to me, wanting a BJ (or more) because his wife/girlfriend won't put out or because he's "curious", I'd be mondo-rich, and I would have received one of Bush's tax cuts. :nod:

To be honest, I don't think this is true. By nature, everyone has a crush or a faint sexual feeling towards a member of their sex. It happens naturally in puberty and there is evidence to suggest that while it may diminish somewhat as people age, the feelings are always still present to some degree. I believe that, generally speaking, a great number of men are secretly happy about another man being attracted to them. It doesn't mean that they are attracted to that person, but it also doesn't mean that they are gay if the feeling is mutual to some degree. Most of the time, it has more to do with ego than anything else and while they may perpetuate the feeling that they are grossed out and uncomfortable, I don't think they are. Personally, I consider myself to be as straight as the sky is blue, but I'll never say that I haven't been attracted to a man before. If I did, I'd be a liar; they're all normal feelings.*

*And there is that Doug Wilson, who, for some reason, gets me incredibly hot.

You are so bad. :laugh: :lol:

I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way!!! :angel:

Lmao!!!
 

So YOU'RE my secret admirer!!! Thanks for all the flowers!!! How did you know gladiolas were my favorite??? (It's okay to admit it -- no one else is reading this thread, I promise...)

And, I totally agree about Doug Wilson. May I suggest that your fascination with him is the fact that he wears leather pants? ;) Do you look as good in yours as he does in his? If so ... argggggghhhhhhhh.

I've heard this (well, I should say about this, since i'm a girl) a lot. In fact, it was just in a column in the SF Chronicle a few months back. A guy was telling a cab driver he was going on a date with a girl, but that he usually stops somewhere to "get one" before his dates, cause it relieves some pressure. Also, as far as I can tell from whoever, wherever i've talked to, boys are better at it cause they have the same stuff and know exactly how it should be.... :wavey: (hope this didn't offend anyone) Oh, and this reminds me, I was talking with a guy friend of mine when i was about 20, and we were talking about Astrology. And he's all "The only Cancer girl I went out with gave the best beej....but, I found out later, that she used to be a man!" :laugh:
AMber

What i've always thought (and i'm not religious in the normal christian sense) is that, since statistically, throughout all of time, 10-25% of the population has been gay, well, if you believe god created everything, then you must believe he (he being a convenient pronoun) did create gay people. And then I started thinking, in theory, wouldn't this be a good creation to keep population down? I mean, not DOWN, but kind of, controlled? Anyway, those were my musings....
AMber

It happens all the time once "straight" guys find out I'm gay or once I tell them. And I'm not incredibly good-looking or super suave or even asking for the attention. They seem to think all gay guys are up for it anytime, anywhere, with anyone, and that's simply not the case for every gay person.

This "phenomenon" has even been the subject of one of Oprah's shows recently, for cripe's sake. Slang-wise, it's called being "On the DL" (down-low). I think the focus of her show was centered on the black community, but it by no means is restricted to them.

Yeah, I hope it was centered on the black community. oh, i edited my post, there's a funny story at the end, go back and read it. But I think the cab guy was a different phenomenon than hiding being gay, which i think is rampant in the black community, and very detrimental (for spreading diseases to wives) and i'm not saying that only gay guys spread stuff, cause that would make me a moron. I'm saying that anyone cheating could spread a nasty disease to their spouse, but if you are gay, and you are still trying to be married to a woman, that you're really going to HAVE to cheat, because you're living a lie, and you're probably not attracted to your spouse - BECAUSE SHE'S NOT A GUY!! :D
And for the guys that approach you, whether they're gay or not, I hardly know any guys who would turn down a quality beej.... :D but how presumptuous to ask you (?)
AMber