Gay marriage on House agenda pre-electio
Find a Conversation
| Wed, 07-07-2004 - 9:52pm |
Wednesday, July 7, 2004 · Last updated 3:34 p.m. PT
Gay marriage on House agenda pre-election
By MARY DALRYMPLE
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
WASHINGTON -- House Republican leaders who were once unenthusiastic about President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment against recognizing gay marriages now say they plan to bring the idea to a vote just before next November's election.
Senate Republicans want to force votes on the amendment in the next two weeks, just before Democrats convene to nominate Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry as their candidate to unseat Bush.
Also in July, the House plans to debate a measure that would give state courts rather than certain federal ones jurisdiction of gay marriage cases.
"We feel like marriage is under attack. Marriage is a spiritual bond between one man and one woman," House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said Wednesday.
"I came to realize, in the end, we're going to have to do a constitutional amendment if we want to protect marriage."
He said House GOP leaders expect to debate the constitutional amendment in September.
The Senate has scheduled time in the next two weeks for debate on its own proposed amendment, though sponsors acknowledge the difficulty of getting the two-thirds majority needed for approval.
President Bush announced his support for an amendment in February.
The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay political organization, has begun a television and Internet advertising campaign aimed at defeating the congressional efforts.
The amendment "is unnecessary, discriminatory and undermines the Constitution," said the group's president, Cheryl Jacques.
Kerry and his vice presidential candidate, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, oppose same-sex marriage but support civil unions. Neither would support a constitutional amendment.
Amendments to the Constitution require approval by two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate and ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures.
The bill dealing with jurisdiction of court cases would leave decisions about legalizing gay marriage in state courts and prevent federal judges from hearing cases that challenge the Defense of Marriage Act. It defines marriage in federal law as the union between a man and a woman.
Rep. John Hostettler, R-Ind., has written legislation to remove marriage from certain federal courts.
In a May statement explaining the bill, he said, "Simply put, if federal courts don't have jurisdiction over marriage issues, they can't hear them. And if they can't hear cases regarding marriage policy, they can't redefine this sacred institution and establish a national precedent for homosexual marriage."
Community Leader: In The News
& Sports Talk
I can also be found at Washington
,
Be sure to check out the Crafts
messageboard for fun, creative & unique projects!




Pages
http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/07/070704gayDems.htm
Gay Democrats Denounce 'Homophobic' GOP Attack On Edwards
(Washington) Republicans have wasted no time in attacking Democratic Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards for his support of gay issues.
Claiming that John Edwards "doesn't share the priorities of American families," the GOP is distributing a 23-page document that attacks Edwards' support for LGBT employment protections, the hate crimes bill, and for endorsing state-issued civil unions for same-sex couples.
The document called Who Is John Edwards uses Edwards voting record and statements the North Carolina senator has made on the issues. While all of the material is public record the way it has been put together under the suggestion he would harm traditional families has infuriated National Stonewall Democrats.
"Republicans insist on running a negative campaign that is dripping in pessimism and that is barren of vision," Dave Noble, NSD Executive Director said in a statement.
"It is time for our community to hold the Republican National Committee accountable for its continuous attacks on our families."
When asked about the RNC piece, White House spokesman Scott McClellan called the attacks "perfectly legitimate" and "perfectly reasonable."
"It's perfectly legitimate to talk about the issues and the differences on those issues, as well as to discuss the record," McClellan said. "There are individuals in this race who have records, and those records are a reflection of how they would lead in office."
The 23 page document was sent by the Republican National Committee to reporters at major newspapers across the country shortly after Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry announced Edwards as his running mate. (story)
"It is not perfectly reasonable to attack Democrats for upholding middle-class values," said Noble. "The majority of Americans support employment protections and equal enforcement of hate crimes laws, and it is the Bush campaign that is demonstrating how hateful and out of touch it truly is."
"Amendments to the Constitution require approval by two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate and ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures."
I feel confident this amendment will never pass. I view it as a gesture to ensure the support of the Religious Right & the hope it'll draw some 'others' into the republican fold. Plus it will be a distraction from inevitable criticism of the Bush economy, Iraq & so forth.
I posted this very same article on another board.
I'm sick to death of how politicians campaign these days.
________________________________________________
"If you don't stand up for something, you'll lie down for anything." -- B
I think that the strategy here is to get folks to vote on this issue PRIOR TO THE ELECTION, in the hopes that it will push Democrats out of office when the voters see how they vote.
But it can work in exactly the opposite manner - and can blow up in the GOP's faces.
________________________________________________
"If you don't stand up for something, you'll lie down for anything." -- Bob Day, Marriage Equality Rally, Rochester NY
Help in the fight against a constitutional amendment!
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
________________________________________________
"If you don't stand up for something, you'll lie down for anything." -- B
FWIW, my partner and I were legally married in Niagara Falls, Ontario two days ago.
And while the Constitution can and possibly COULD be amended to take away certain aspects of that marriage, it can only do it on paper and never in our hearts.
I wonder if anyone has considered that this constitutional amendment COULD be considered....unconstitutional?
________________________________________________
"If you don't stand up for something, you'll lie down for anything." -- Bob Day, Marriage Equality Rally, Rochester NY
Help in the fight against a constitutional amendment!
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
________________________________________________
"If you don't stand up for something, you'll lie down for anything." -- B
Congratulations!!!
I don't see how anyone else's marriage (gay or not) endangers my own.
In fact, I'm not sure what institution people are trying to "protect" when people can just go off and get married on a whim in Vegas like Brittany Spears or get married over and over again like J-Lo or Elizabeth Taylor. Are their marriages somehow more sacred because they happen to be between a man and a woman?
It's pretty hypocritical in this day and age to hold up marriage as some sort of sacred covenant considering what it means to a great many people (getting divorced at the drop of a hat etc...)
Marriage is what you bring into it and the committment two people share. Like declaring a war on a noun, amending the constitution to "protect" marriage seems silly IMO. I mean, while they are at it why don't they just add more meat to it like saying the parties have to know each other for a certain period of time before marrying or limiting the number of divorces a person can have?
;o)
Pages