-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Gay Marriage Ban Ammendment.... FAILS.
- Thread starter Goreomedy
- Start date
- Status
Drinky Crow
Banned
Bloody authoritarian assholes. I'm glad their evil got shot down, although I'd have hoped for a much larger delta.
Littleberu
Banned
YES!! NOW I CAN MARRY ANOTHER MAN!
Idle Will Kill
Banned
I still fail to see how this isn't at it's core a religious issue, and thus gay marriage should be allowed due to seperation of church and state.
but WHATEVER.
but WHATEVER.
Star Power
Member
Yay, that's great 
.
.
shoplifter
Member
Suranga3 said:
No this was for cloture iirc. It would have enabled them to bring the amendment to a vote.
\/\/\/
yeah, 60 votes for cloture, then 67 to pass the amendment. THEN it would go to the house and be stuck in committee. THEN 3/4 of the states would have to ratify it. Not gonna happen.
Actually, it wasn't that close, considering 60 votes would have been needed to continue debate, and then 67 needed to move on to the next step.
It's hilarious that an issue that was supposed to divide and conquer Democrats, has instead split Republicans. Lots of red-faced conservatives out there today, after moderate Reps bitch-slapped them.
It's hilarious that an issue that was supposed to divide and conquer Democrats, has instead split Republicans. Lots of red-faced conservatives out there today, after moderate Reps bitch-slapped them.
ManDudeChild
Member
Idle Will Kill said:
It's a nice concept on paper, but I think we all know that's a crock
SolidSnakex
Member
Here's more craziness:
"I would argue that the future of our country hangs in the balance because the future of marriage hangs in the balance," said Sen. Rick Santorum, a leader in the fight to approve the measure. "Isn't that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?"
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040714/ap_on_go_co/gay_marriage_20
"I would argue that the future of our country hangs in the balance because the future of marriage hangs in the balance," said Sen. Rick Santorum, a leader in the fight to approve the measure. "Isn't that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?"
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040714/ap_on_go_co/gay_marriage_20
Banjo Tango
Member
Did Bush actually expect it to make it past this part?
I thought the whole point was just to stir up the nut-job portion of his base and force the "gay marriage issue" on to Kerry.
At any rate, glad to hear it was a bi-partisan smackdown.
I thought the whole point was just to stir up the nut-job portion of his base and force the "gay marriage issue" on to Kerry.
At any rate, glad to hear it was a bi-partisan smackdown.
mightynine
Member
Sad thing is the reason many Republicans were divided over this was because the next line in the proposed ban would probably have allowed civil unions.
Either way, I didn't like the ban, I think it's absurd. This whole "destroying the basic social unit of society" is nonsense. Not one person can give me a concrete result of what would be wrong with two guys or gals getting hitched, except it apparently makes them think their own marriage will somehow seem less, and we can't have that!
and EDIT: I'll believe the whole "it might lead to someone wanting to marry their goat" when I actually see a groundswell of support from it...NOT from Arkansas. (thank you, I'll be here all week)
Either way, I didn't like the ban, I think it's absurd. This whole "destroying the basic social unit of society" is nonsense. Not one person can give me a concrete result of what would be wrong with two guys or gals getting hitched, except it apparently makes them think their own marriage will somehow seem less, and we can't have that!
and EDIT: I'll believe the whole "it might lead to someone wanting to marry their goat" when I actually see a groundswell of support from it...NOT from Arkansas. (thank you, I'll be here all week)
ManDudeChild
Member
Lathentar said:
Exactly. If a man can't hear a priest say, "You may now kiss the monkey" then life isn't worth living.
Seriously though, going to that level is really splitting hairs. Sometimes I think these issues are brought to the forefront so often by governments around the world (I dont mean gay marrage in particular right now), completely stupid things that shouldn't be an issue, to avoid solving real problems.
Banjo Tango
Member
I also love how Santorum can't come up with any real reason to ban gay marriage beyond asanine analogies. "Marriage is the glue that holds society together, and GAY marriage is like a solvent... a GAY solvent. Folks, you get what I'm saying? And goddamnit, why does everyone laugh when they hear my name?"SolidSnakex said:
ConfusingJazz
Member
Lathentar said:
Yeah, that senator from PA that we all know and love, Santorum, actually said that from legalizing anal sex that naturally law that would allow people to marry their sisters, goats, polygamy, or all three at the same time will come next.
That would be a fucked up household by the by...
shoplifter
Member
^^^^ yup, i called that shit months ago
Honestly, I don't have a problem with polygamy provided that they give up the right to welfare (ya know, with 15 kids and all) and that the tax benefits and insurance only apply to one spouse.
Persons with the financial means to support that kind of lifestyle shouldn't be prohibited from doing so.
Honestly, I don't have a problem with polygamy provided that they give up the right to welfare (ya know, with 15 kids and all) and that the tax benefits and insurance only apply to one spouse.
Persons with the financial means to support that kind of lifestyle shouldn't be prohibited from doing so.
SolidSnakex
Member
Banjo Tango said:
Ofcourse because there is no real reason for a ban. It's not going to hurt anyone. I don't see how someone gay getting married is anymore harmful to marriage than TV shows absed around setting people up to get married after not even knowing people for a day, or celebrities getting married for less than 2 days. This whole thing though is completely based on religion and people can't look past that when arguing why gay marriage is bad.
I'm sure some people do (probably the ones who got him into his position in the first place), but there's also a great deal of us who cringe almost everytime he opens his mouth. Pennsylvania is actually considered a swing state, so there's plenty of people on both sides of the fence here.HalfPastNoon said:
I recommend taking some time to read the transcripts of the debate on the matter at thomas.loc.gov. (No direct link, because links don't seem to last there for more than a couple of hours for some reason.) Check the Senate transcript from July 9 to yesterday.
There's one point during the debate where Sen. Orrin Hatch takes a detour, seemingly to talk about the evils of Harry Potter slash fiction, that's most entertaining.
There's one point during the debate where Sen. Orrin Hatch takes a detour, seemingly to talk about the evils of Harry Potter slash fiction, that's most entertaining.
ConfusingJazz
Member
human5892 said:
Do you know how popular the guy is in your state, like how much did he win his election by and stuff?
He makes me ashamed to live in NJ and have to deal with hearing about him on Philadelphia television stations.human5892 said:
A big woohoo for this not getting through. America needs to start PROGRESSING. It seems to me like there's been a huge devolution movement for a long, long time and it's sickening.
Actually, this is not going to go away and it actually works in favor of the opponents.
1) The RINOs are going to be skewered come election time with their no votes
2) It becomes an election topic on state and even local level elections.
3) you will see more states go for a ban of gay marriage to be put on the ballot.
4) The house still has to take it up and the Senate can alway go back to it.
5) It will most likely bring out even more social conservatives to the voting polls come november and thats a lot of vote.
The voting on this was closer than anyone believed, Kerry/Edwards skipped the vote, so that makes for campaign fodder as well.
1) The RINOs are going to be skewered come election time with their no votes
2) It becomes an election topic on state and even local level elections.
3) you will see more states go for a ban of gay marriage to be put on the ballot.
4) The house still has to take it up and the Senate can alway go back to it.
5) It will most likely bring out even more social conservatives to the voting polls come november and thats a lot of vote.
The voting on this was closer than anyone believed, Kerry/Edwards skipped the vote, so that makes for campaign fodder as well.
shoplifter
Member
Ripclawe said:
Considering they were 12 votes short, it wasn't close at all. Not to mention it wasn't even a vote on the bill, but a vote to continue debate.
That doesn't change the fact that the GoP will paint it that way because most people haven't a clue on how Congress (let alone the rest of the government) actually works.
They had actually both committed to voting on the Amendment resolution, not this resolution for the bill to be able to progress to that stage.Ripclawe said:
ConfusingJazz: I'm not sure how much support old Rick has in terms of pure numbers. PA is a very varied place, though; I go to college in a town that's really quite liberal, but it's just 20 minutes away from another town that black people would probably be afraid to live in. So it's definitely conceivable that he would be elected by a close margin.
Oh goodie, as if we don't have enough genetically faulted children, we will be seeing more and more gay children in the end. Gay marraige by itself is alright, but think about the child which they might adopt. The child will most likely inevitably turn gay too due to the enviroment the child grew up with. How will humanity ever reach the next evolution with all these people around... ?
SolidSnakex
Member
HalfPastNoon said:
I think he is being sarcastic..Atleast I hope so.
Kobun Heat
Member
I don't think anybody ACTUALLY expected this to make it past the cloture vote. What it does do is get every senator (except Waffle and Grits, of course) on record, which is ultimately something they'd have preferred to avoid.
Based on the transcript, it's pretty clear no one expected it to pass. The pattern goes like this:
Republican: Blah de blah, sanctity of the family, etc.
Democrat: Why are we talking about this when we could be taking about homeland security? You know you don't have the votes.
Republican: This is just as important an issue as homeland security! How dare you dismiss the sanctity of the family? Blah de blah.
Democrat: So why are we talking about this again?
Repeat ad infinitum.
Republican: Blah de blah, sanctity of the family, etc.
Democrat: Why are we talking about this when we could be taking about homeland security? You know you don't have the votes.
Republican: This is just as important an issue as homeland security! How dare you dismiss the sanctity of the family? Blah de blah.
Democrat: So why are we talking about this again?
Repeat ad infinitum.
Banjo Tango
Member
So it doesn't look good if you voted for it... it doesn't look good if you voted against it... and it doesn't look good if you abstained. Who wins here?Kobun Heat said:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked