Same-sex marriage ban fails in Senate
 

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 Posted: 1:09 PM EDT (1709 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Efforts to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage foundered Wednesday afternoon in the Senate when the proposal failed to garner enough votes to stay alive.

After final arguments by the leaders of each party, the Republicans mustered 48 votes, 12 short of the 60 they needed to overcome a procedural hurdle and move the proposed amendment to the floor.


CNN Article

This whole issue is just election year posturing. Its a bad idea, and bad precedent.

Not suprised at all.

Exactly. Mostly to motivate the Christian Right to show up and vote.

I think it'll be effective.

Its mostly certainly working in my city, that's for sure. Many, many churches have become more active than before.

You ain't seen nothin' yet (that's my prediction).

My pastor's probably PIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIISSSED...

Naw, not really, but he was really adamant about us calling our elected officials.

Did he actually think the thing had a prayer?

Maybe....I'm an educated man, but I'm afraid I can't speak intelligently about the prayer requests of Dr. David Jeremiah.

Either way, I knew it wouldn't pass, and since I'm not gay, I could really care less. As long as people don't start asking for polygamy or the right to marry animals (Damn, I can't take Duke seriously after seeing THAT vid), then whatever...

Animal hater.

How cool! I love to listen to him. :)

LOLOLOLOL. I thought closed-minded was the term to use nowadays. :p

Slippery-slope argument.

The government is one of the few places that slippery slopes really do happen.

Think just about any social program, or social security. Tell me that those aren't the product of slippery slopes.

The real question is are you an animal hater that would deny this right to animals that love their masters? Hey, marriage is no longer for procreation, so why are you going to stand in the way of two consenting adults?

We just have to remember to count the age of majority in dog, horse and cat years.

when a dog can read outloud and understand the rights and responsibilities they are entering into with a marriage contract, then I will back them having the right to marriage.

edit: I think Britney and J-Lo need to pass this test before they can get married again...

All you need is love.

I've always wondered how the Conservative Christian Reich believes that gay marriage violates the sanctity of matrimony, but J.Lo and Britney Spears are A-OK?

Seriously--I'd rather see my accountant and his lawyer husband in a stable committed union than J.Ho and Twatney whoring it up.

Heterosexual privilege at its finest, my friends.

I agree.

It is a state issue, which is why it failed in the Senate.
I think what happens between two consenting adults is private and if they want to express their love through marital union, that should be their right whether they're bisexual, straight, gay, lesbian, etc.


....J. Ho....Twatney....lol, priceless....

Ron Reagan put it best last night when Chris Matthews was grilling him on it. Matthews asked about the pologmy and beastiality thing. Reagan replied, "Those laws are on the books. The difference here is those laws apply equally to heterosexuals and homosexuals. This ammendment would restrict the rights of one entire class of citizens, and thats not what this country is about."

I had no idea Rick Santorum was such an extremest. "I would argue that the future of our country hangs in the balance because the future of marriage hangs in the balance," he said shortly before the vote. "Isn't that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?" Is he serious?

I watched the debate on CSPAN and they were all talkign about how awesome and sacred marrage was. So why wouldnt they want all aspects of society to have that?

Dolly Parton said on the Ellen show about gay marrage, "I'm all for it. Why should us straight people have to suffer alone?" lol.

Ha, you should read Savage Love, by Dan Savage. He's a gay man in a monogamous relationship with an adopted child, living very happily. He loves him some Santorum.

It's not her joke. I don't like joke stealers. I used to know a kid in high school who would use my jokes on people and act like it was OK. I saw it on Spin City and I bet it's been used before.

-Rudey

Roll Call can be found here: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040714/D83QOP681.html

Gay Marriage Roll Call Vote

Jul 14, 3:42 PM (ET)
By The Associated Press

The 50-48 roll call by which the Senate blocked a constitutional amendment to
ban gay marriage. Supporters the amendment fell 12 votes short of the 60 they
needed to advance the bill.

On this vote, a "yes" vote was a vote to advance the measure and a "no" vote was
a vote to stop it.

Voting "yes" were 3 Democrats and 45 Republicans.

Voting "no" were 43 Democrats, 6 Republicans and 1 Independent.

Maybe the writers of Spin City got it from her and she said it a long time a go and you just heard it from them first?

Wow...

With all that's going on in our country, I find it so laughable that whenever there's a diversion from our soldiers dying in Iraq, and other lives lost around the world to keep us safe from terrorism, it's always an issue of "morality" that is raised. Think about it-from Clinton's "affair", to Janet Jackson's breast, now to the definition of marriage, it's ridiculous that this is even an issue. If marriage truly is a "sacred institution" for the basis of "procreation", then cool-let's outlaw divorces, all couples that have kids out of wedlock should be forced to get married, and if a couple cannot/will not have children in a set amount of time (2 years? 3 years?), then they should forfeit the right to be married. This way, marriage is truly a sacred union for the only purpose of raising children.

"...Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere..."

Dig the MLK quote. My favorite of his.

Thanks! You know, as I was writing this, I put on one of my favorite Garth Brooks songs, "We Shall Be Free"-it really got me to thinking..."What if"??? What if what Garth sings about actually happened one day? If any of you reading this have the song, play it sometime...

"...This ain't coming from no prophet...just an ordinary man. When I close my eyes I see, the way this world could be, if we all walked hand in hand..."

Letter from Birmingham Jail should be mandatory reading for everyone.

*back to the issue*

Maybe this is my California mindset talking here, but what is the big f'n deal? If gay people want to get married, let them. Its not going to hurt anyone, just let them do what they want!

i agree. part of why i'm glad i live in a state that allows it. it's none of my business what anyone else does in their home/bedroom as it's none of their business what i do in mine.

I agree. You have to realize though that in our country, religion has always been a very strong influence. It waxes and wanes in terms of importance. Right now, we have caught it at a huge upswing. I'm not sure it's a really bad thing either.

Gay marriage is something that a lot of Christians (not just conservatives) take very personally.

It's also an election year. The Republicans have needed an issue that will turn out their base. The Dems have the war in Iraq, people thinking the rich make too much money, etc. Now, finally, the Republicans have something that will get their people excited and showing up to the polls. My thought is that the reason that this issue was brought up as an amendment was because the knew it would fail. If it had passed, then they would have lost something very important to their campaign.

The only legitimate reason I can see for being against gay marriage is because I don't want to pay higher insurance rates due to so many gay spouses requiring AIDS medication and treatment. Other than that, I don't see how it effects me.

Well, except that after law school, I plan to go into family law. So 10% of the population that couldn't have divorces will now be having divorces. That should offset any AIDS medication costs.

kt, do you have any information supporting that gay marriage would result in increased insurance premiums due to AIDS medications? Since so many health plans won't cover people due to pre-existing conditions like diabetes, I would imagine it might be difficult to have an AIDS patient covered. Plus, a lot of those medications aren't covered by insurance.

I've read about this topic a lot, and you're the only person I can come across who's said anything of the sort.

I always thought that heterosexual women had a higher HIV/AIDS rate than homosexual men. I remember hearing that in my Gender Roles class during college but I could be wrong.

As you've already said, gay men have a higher NEW infection rate than any other group currently. Except for maybe African Americans. The last data I checked out was from '00. But gays still had far and away the highest infection rate then (something in the neighborhood of 3-1 over everyone else).

I didn't say it was a GOOD argument. It's just the only logical one I can come up with against gay marriage.

And like I said, in the long run, it'll probably mean more business for me if I am one day practicing family law as I want to :D

U.S. to save $1B with gay marriage
Andrew Noyes, PlanetOut Network
Wednesday, June 23, 2004 / 11:41 AM


Allowing same-sex couples to marry would have a positive impact on the U.S. federal budget to the tune of an additional $400 million per year until the end of this decade, the Congressional Budget Office announced Monday.

Such an allowance would boost federal income tax revenues mainly due to the alleviation of the so-called "marriage penalty" income tax -- a glitch in the tax code that prior to last year's tax-cut legislation, imposed a penalty on newlyweds. Receipts from other taxes, particularly payroll taxes, would be unlikely to change significantly.

Social security payments would also rise over time, as would spending on spousal health insurance benefits for federal workers, if gay couples were allowed to legally marry, the report affirms. However, spending on Medicaid and Supplemental Security Income would fall, CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin wrote in a letter to Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, who requested the analysis.

The net impact would be a federal budget savings of nearly $1 billion per year, assuming that same-sex marriages are legalized in all 50 states and recognized by the federal government, he reported.

"The CBO report adds to the growing weight of studies showing that same-sex marriage makes sense from an economic perspective," noted economist Lee Badgett of the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies (IGLSS).

"Although most attention has focused on the benefits of marriage, this report reminds us that marriage involves responsibilities, too," Badgett said. "Strengthening same-sex couples' legal standing will reduce demands on federal and state budgets."

The budget office's findings parallel the conclusions of recent studies executed by IGLSS and the University of California Los Angeles' Williams Project about the impact of granting marriage and domestic partnership rights at the state level. A recent study showed that California would have a net savings of $22-25 million yearly if same-sex couples could marry.

Meanwhile, a report by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) released a day after the CBO analysis found that American businesses would see very little impact on their benefits costs if same-sex couples were permitted to marry.

The HRC report concludes that most businesses would have no employees who would marry a same-sex partner -- thus putting an end to claims by gay marriage opponents who allege that allowing same-sex couples to marry would be a financial drain on corporate America, said Kim Mills, HRC's education director.

"Rather than relying on stereotypes about gay and lesbian couples, the CBO used the best data available on same-sex couples from Census 2000 to calculate their estimates," Brad Sears, Williams Project executive director, said in a press release. "Applying the census figures to individual states' budgets would show many millions more in savings if same-sex couples could marry."

The Human Rights Campaign also weighed in on the CBO analysis shortly after its release. "Congress' own analysis shows America would benefit from equal protection," HRC President Cheryl Jacques said. "Now it's clear that giving all American families equal protection wouldn't harm the bottom line."

"On balance, legalization of same-sex marriages would have only a small impact on federal tax revenues," Holtz-Eakin told Chabot in the letter. Chabot chairs the House subcommittee on the Constitution, which is slated to hold a hearing on same-sex marriage on Thursday.

No. I just had tea with her. She confirmed that she stole it.

-Rudey
--And then I touched her boobies

I just wanted to know if you had anything to support that argument.

The data I found on the CDC website was a little dated, but the trends weren't really changing.

From the period of 1985 through 1997, there were 295,355 new cases of HIV infection due to men having sex with other men. That accounts for MORE THAN HALF of all new cases of HIV reported. The overall number was 584,618. You might be able to lump in the category of those who weren't sure whether they were infected from homosexual contact or injected drug use which was 37,514.

In that whole period, just so you know, there were 50,356 new cases of HIV/AIDS reported by heterosexuals.

It's no contest.

Here's the link:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus98.pdf

The chart is on page 272 of that report. It's a pdf so it takes awhile to load -- consider yourself warned :D

No, I meant as far as the impact that gay marriages would have on insurance costs due to HIV-related illnesses. I'm quite familiar with what the CDC has to say.

Many workers' spouses with preexisting conditions are still granted medical insurance depending on the insurance company's contract with their employer. There are according to the data far more homosexual cases than heterosexual cases of HIV/AIDS.

I don't see why that is a stretch for you?

Again, I didn't say it was a strong argument. I just said it was the only rational one I could come up with -- in other words, the only argument that was not religion/morality related (because I think that shouldn't play a role in policy making).

PlanetOut Network... an unbiased source :D

It's not a stretch. Originally, I thought you were finding this from a news source with which I wasn't familiar. Now I see that you are inferring the argument.