First activist judges, now activist senate...

...and to think they were only 11 votes off....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Jun 7 2006, 12:35 PM) [snapback]267400[/snapback]</div>

Actually they were 18 votes short. 67 votes are needed for the Senate to approve a constitutional amendment. The final tally was 49 in favor of passing the amendment.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Jun 7 2006, 04:00 PM) [snapback]267409[/snapback]</div>

Seems like a 2 step process, a vote to clear the way for a vote on the actual amendment...

CNN

"Proponents failed to get the 60 votes needed to end debate and move to a vote on the actual amendment."

Either way, it most certainly wasn't a "hands down" win...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Jun 7 2006, 04:04 PM) [snapback]267412[/snapback]</div>

They are affraid to give the people a say.

That being said, the only state to vote on gay marrage yesterday followed in the footsteps of the prior 18 or 19 states and turned it down 75% to 25% - I believe it was Alabama.

Number of states who passed referendums supporting gay marrage - ZERO.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Jun 7 2006, 03:00 PM) [snapback]267409[/snapback]</div>

Not to be a stickler about parliamentary procedure, but what the House and Senate are voting on is whether to send the amendment to the states for ratification. The states also have the option of taking up the matter themselves if 3/4ths of the state legislatures vote for the amendment. However, I believe that option has never been used.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Jun 7 2006, 04:21 PM) [snapback]267431[/snapback]</div>

Because as witnessed in at least one state where the people voted over 70% against gay marrage, the state court overruled the people and instituted it as legal - I believe Arizona. That is why you need a Constitutional Amendment - to protect against activist judges who overrule the WILL OF THE PEOPLE - How could a single citizen overrule millions of his fellow state citizens - sheer arrogance - and I believe he is a Liberal too - figures.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 7 2006, 04:28 PM) [snapback]267434[/snapback]</div>

...this reminds me, another thing I don't care for: the concept of Judgship for LIFE. Is it REALLY wise to keep a guy on the same bench for like 60 years?

 

Hey, I know, let's have civil rights decided by a majority! Then there won't be any! Problem solved.

 

What all these tirades about "the will of the people" ignore is that it is sometimes necessary for the judicial system to protect the minority from the rule of the majority.
The marriage amendment never had a hope of being enacted, even if they got the necessary votes in the Senate. It was, pure and simple, a move to appease Bush's conservative Christian base and to get them riled up and out to the polls in November. And judging by some of the comments here, that tactic would seem to be effective.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Jun 7 2006, 04:37 PM) [snapback]267440[/snapback]</div>

"Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people"

Oscar Wilde.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Jun 7 2006, 04:43 PM) [snapback]267443[/snapback]</div>

If the current administration has its way, it will no longer be legal to quote Oscar Wilde.

 

Actually, 'activist judges' seem to get that label by "misinterpreting" laws laid down by such entities as the Senate, so when the Senate tries to lay them down in ways that harken back to when fire was a new invention, we need a new term.

'Retroactivist Senate', maybe?...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ Jun 7 2006, 04:40 PM) [snapback]267442[/snapback]</div>

And how does this pertain to gay marrage or polygamy?

And I am sure the will of the minority that think life is sacred over those that think abortion is a legal right should be protected too - so R vs. Wade should be thrown out??????????????????????????? I await your thoughts on this one.

 

If I marry my Prius and my dog, does my employers PPO insurance have to cover any repairs to my car... at least 80/20, and pick up 100% of the maintenance costs?

If the dog gets sick, they pay the vet bill?

Heck, maybe I could also marry 5 or 6 old ladies and men who don't have health insurance but don't mind giving me a couple hundred a month out of their social security checks in return for my company having to pay for all their prescriptions and their medical care.

Sound nuts to you? It is crazy, but you wouldn't want to exclude me now would you? What rights do you have to tell me how to live my life and that my lifestyle is unacceptable? Maybe to me, this is normal...

Crazy talk, just as crazy as 2 dudes getting married or two chicks. Society will suffer as homosexuality is allowed to become normal.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jun 7 2006, 05:55 PM) [snapback]267501[/snapback]</div>

Prove it

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mdmikemd @ Jun 7 2006, 01:15 PM) [snapback]267426[/snapback]</div>

To be exact, 2/3 of the states' legislatures have to first call for a Constitutional Convention:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hybridTHEvibe @ Jun 7 2006, 06:17 PM) [snapback]267512[/snapback]</div>

Prove absolutely it won't