The other day I wrote to the big 3 CT reps saying: “Simply put, the federal government should not dictate how marriage is defined. I urge you to oppose the “Gay Marriage Ban”. Let each state decide.”
Joe Lieberman wrote back saying: “Although I do not support gay marriage, I
believe that states have the right to adopt state laws that allow same-sex
unions, which is why I do not support the amendment as drafted since it
precludes states from adopting all such arrangements.”
Dodd? DeLauro? Still waiting to hear back from the both of you.
In the news today was an article titled: Senate Not Likely to Pass Gay Marriage Ban. Well that is a relief. For the full story click more.
Soon, I figure, I’ll hear back from the 2 Ds.
Senate Not Likely to Pass Gay Marriage Ban
Jun 06 11:32 AM US/Eastern
By LAURIE KELLMAN
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON
Election year stunt or legislative rescue for society troubled by the breakdown of traditional families?
Those close to the Senate’s three-day debate over efforts to ban gay marriage are engaging that argument with all of the passion and volume of people fighting over legislation that stands a chance of passage.
One Republican senator says the amendment could open a rift in society as wide as the gulf over Roe v. Wade. Others say the very health of society depends on traditional families.
President Bush, his popularity sagging and his conservative base dissatisfied with Republicans’ efforts on social issues, pushed the issue Tuesday for the third time in as many days.
“The administration believes that the future of marriage in America should be decided through the democratic constitutional amendment process, rather than by the court orders of a few,” a White House statement said.
Everyone agrees on a few things: The proposed constitutional amendment, which would define marriage as the union of a man and a woman, has no chance of surviving a test vote in the Senate on Wednesday, let alone the supermajorities required to pass Congress.
And there are few straight faces even among those claiming that election-year politics has nothing to do with the timing.
Politics aside, there’s plenty to fight about marriage and who should define it.
Supporters of the amendment say Congress is the right place to set cultural standards, and that traditional marriages are the foundation of healthy societies. Those on this side of the debate draw a connection between nontraditional families, poverty and troubled children.
“The law is a teacher,” said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., one of the floor managers. “It is a moral and societal imperative that we foster and encourage the institution of marriage.”
Opponents, who include every Senate Democrat but one and a few Republicans, say the proposed amendment is government intrusion at its most personal. They say any connection drawn between nontraditional families and societal ills assumes that same-sex couples cannot foster loving and healthy environments for children.
“Government ought to be kept off our backs, out of our pocketbooks and out of our bedrooms,” said Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who said he was quoting former Sen. Barry Goldwater, R-Ariz. He predicted that if the matter is legislated at the federal level rather than being left to the states, society would split as wide as it has over the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.
More than half of Americans, 58 percent, said in an ABC News poll released Monday that same-sex marriages should be illegal. But only four in 10 said they support amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage, while a majority said states should make their own laws on gay marriage.
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.
Opponents of a federal ban accuse majority Republicans of spending valuable Senate time to buck up conservatives.
“Apparently high campaign season has arrived on the Republican leader’s calendar,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. “The Constitution is too important to be used for such a partisan political purpose.”
The amendment would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages. To become law, it would need two-thirds support in the Senate and House, and then would have to be ratified by at least 38 state legislatures.
With Bush taking center stage on the issue, advocates on both sides of the issue rushed to comment.
On the left, Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU legislative office in Washington, said lawmakers rightly rejected the amendment in 2004 and should do so again. “Discrimination has no place in America, and certainly not in our founding document,” she said.
On the right, Matt Daniels, president of the Alliance for Marriage, argued that same-sex marriage advocates are trying to circumvent the democratic process and redefine marriage through the courts. “Marriage is the social glue that unites the two halves of the human race to share in the enterprise of raising the next generation,” Daniels said.