Gay marriage amendment fails in Senate
Jul. 14th, 2004 02:04 pmThe constitutional amendment we're debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans. It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states do not believe confronts them.
--John McCain
(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-14 11:15 am (UTC)I'll be very interested, though, in a) whether Bush and the right wing are able to use politicians' "nay" votes against them in elections to come and b) whether John McCain will be equally hard-hitting in his remarks when he addresses the Republican National Convention next month. We've won an important battle, but the war is far from over.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-14 12:09 pm (UTC)The Iraq war effort, for instance, can reasonably be considered a successful effort to flush tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money in the name of improving and propping up a foreign nation to no palpable domestic benefit. This is hardly classically Republican fiscal conservatism.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-14 12:24 pm (UTC)Yay!
(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-14 12:46 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-14 12:50 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-14 12:54 pm (UTC)I was thinking of running a slash pairing marriage fic challenge to celebrate! I'm hoping some people might be interested. :)
(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-14 04:14 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-14 05:54 pm (UTC)~Erin
(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-14 08:33 pm (UTC)SHAW: Senator, sexual orientation. Should a male who loves a male and a female who loves a female have all -- all -- the constitutional rights enjoyed by every American citizen?
CHENEY: This is a tough one, Bernie. The fact of the matter is, we live in a free society and freedom means freedom for everybody. We don't get to choose, and shouldn't be able to choose, and say, "You get to live free, but you don't."
And I think that means that people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. It's really no one else's business in terms of trying to regulate or prohibit behavior in that regard.
The next step then, of course, is the question you asked of whether or not there ought to be some kind of official sanction, if you will, of the relationship or if these relationships should be treated the same way a conventional marriage is. That's a tougher problem. That's not a slam dunk.
I think the fact of the matter, of course, is that matter is regulated by the states. I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions and that's appropriate. I don't think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area.
I try to be open-minded about it as much as I can and tolerant of those relationships.
And like Joe, I also wrestle with the extent to which there ought to be legal sanction of those relationships. I think we ought to do everything we can to tolerate and accommodate whatever kind of relationships people want to enter into.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-19 05:52 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-19 05:53 pm (UTC)Great icon, btw!
(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-19 08:28 pm (UTC)Heidi, thanks for the info. I suppose that after Rick Sentorum opened his bigoted, closed-minded mouth so infamously last year, the log cabin republicans have been pretty much lost to Bush (grumble grumble, if only I could vote...)
(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-20 09:48 am (UTC)