Welcome to Gaia! ::

Reply The Gaian Gay Straight Alliance
Too Close for Comfort Goto Page: 1 2 [>] [»|]

Quick Reply

Enter both words below, separated by a space:

Can't read the text? Click here

Submit

hazellazer
Captain

PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 8:34 am


Fortunately I just found out that the FMA did not pass. However, the vote was only 49 to 48. That makes me sick, if one vote had gone the other way... oh man... *swoon**faint*
PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 10:45 am


Me and my friends must have written over 20 letters all together to our senator...phew...safe.

ash_nazg_durbatuluk01


AkureiKnight

PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 1:20 pm


Sweet Jesus! Im glad it didn't pass! But daaaaamn... that is one close shot... gonk ******** asses. stare
PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 2:42 pm


i'm just gald that the senate has come to their senses

Spartan-4202


Tsach

PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 3:01 pm


Wait, whaaaaat?

I heard that it was just barely killed, but I didn't know that it was by a single vote.

That's terrifying.
PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 4:27 pm


********.

It's great that it didn't pass.

But, ********. It almost made it...D:

Holy Roman Empire


Kohki

PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 5:40 pm


I'm amazed. That one person made all the difference in the world.
PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 8:15 pm


Ugh. The sad thing is, because it was so close, it may be ressurected again in the future. If the next president is a republican of Bush's ilk, and if he has a high enough approval rating despite that, I can forsee the religious right attempting to get it passed again. It won't end unless the electorate smartens up and stops voting based on who can afford the prettier ads *grumble curse grumble*

DysPerDis


DysPerDis

PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 8:17 pm


Kohki
I'm amazed. That one person made all the difference in the world.
We should fundraise to send all of those who voted against it fruit baskets in thanks. Not only is it within a forseeable budget, it has that nice double entendre.
PostPosted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 4:17 am


T-T That was far too close.

It's not even funny.

D: Can't people just let others have their rights without having to try to pass admendments against them?


We're so backwards.

Countries are not legalizing gay marriage.

And our country is trying to ban it. gonk

Moocat


Eebie

PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 9:13 am


DysPerDis
Ugh. The sad thing is, because it was so close, it may be ressurected again in the future. If the next president is a republican of Bush's ilk, and if he has a high enough approval rating despite that, I can forsee the religious right attempting to get it passed again. It won't end unless the electorate smartens up and stops voting based on who can afford the prettier ads *grumble curse grumble*
It'll never pass stressed !! America about EQUALITY domokun . It wouldn't make ANY sense to pass laws with the intention to discriminate! It's still outrageous this is even an issue. Only one vote saved us?? That's just-I'm baffeled. I don't even know wut to say. I'm just glad it wasn't passed xp .
PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 11:16 am


Yeah, here's the article I got off my Roadrunner home page.

Quote:
WASHINGTON (CNN) The Senate blocked on Wednesday a bid to amend the Constitution to essentially ban same-sex marriage.

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

The Senate vote was 49-48 to end debate, or invoke cloture.

Conservative Republicans, looking to solidify their base in an election year, pushed the plan even as they conceded it did not have enough votes to pass. After the vote, they pledged to keep the issue in the spotlight.

"We're going to continue to press this issue," Colorado Republican Sen. Wayne Allard said. "If it's up to me, we'll have a vote on this issue every year."

"We're making progress, and we're not going to stop until marriage between a man and a woman is protected," said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kansas.

"We have 45 states that have defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman," Brownback said. "Since the last time we voted in the Senate, we've seen a total of 14 states take this issue up on the ballot -- on the ballot -- and you've got another seven set for this fall."

Meanwhile, House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said the same-sex marriage amendment will come before that body next month, The Associated Press reported.

"This is an issue that is of significant importance to many Americans," Boehner said. "We have significant numbers of our members who want a vote on this, so we are going to have a vote."

Opponents called the measure an election-year ploy that wasted precious time on the legislative calendar.

"This is not about the preservation of marriage. This is about the preservation of a majority," Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, said as debate started Wednesday. "I think, sadly, most people realize there's political motivation here."

Sen. Ted Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, denounced the proposed amendment Tuesday as "an instrument of bigotry and prejudice," which he said was designed by the GOP leadership "to try to bring Republican senators out of the ditch of disapproval."

And Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said that "the reason the Senate Republicans are pushing this marriage amendment is because they don't want to address the real issues of this country."

"This is an effort by the president and the majority in the House and the Senate to distort, to misdirect what the real issues are," he said.

The vote began around 10 a.m., after a final hour of debate. The Senate began debate on the amendment Monday afternoon.

Even if the measure had been able to clear the procedural vote, a two-thirds majority -- 67 votes -- would be required for final approval by the Senate of a constitutional amendment -- an even higher hurdle to overcome.

The last time the Senate voted on the amendment, in July 2004, only 48 senators supported it and 50 were opposed.

Spurred on by religious conservatives in his political base, President Bush had called on the Senate to approve the amendment, saying it was necessary to protect the institution of marriage from state court decisions striking down marriage laws that exclude gay and lesbian couples.

So far that has happened in just one state, Massachusetts, where same-sex marriages became legal in 2003, although court cases are pending in other states.

To become part of the Constitution an amendment needs approval from at least two-thirds of the Senate (67 of the 100 members); at least two-thirds of the House (290 of the 435 members); and three-fourths of the states (38 of the 50 states).

A constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the states can also propose an amendment, which would still have to be ratified by three-quarters of the states.

In the nearly 220 years since the Constitution was written, only 27 amendments have made it through this arduous approval process, the most recent in 1992 governing the timing of changes in congressional compensation. No amendment has been suggested by a constitutional convention.


It is coming up for revote too in about a month.

And know why it can't pass? Here's my thoughts, and I'm going to send them to my senator as well!

I fully support our first constitutional right to the freedom of religion. Just because Christianity and Catholism, and other religions probably, ban gay marriage doesn't mean they all do. As far as I know, Paganism and Wiccanism both allow for it. There are probably others as well. So a constitutional ban would be violating the first amendment right. Definately not cool. And then the state should be made to give the marriage lisence to the couple as well. You can spend a ton of money on a wedding of any sort, and just because you're gay they won't give you the lisence. That's wrong. And some of you may go for civil unions, well, that's nice and all except it doesn't give the same rights as legal marriage does. Definately not fair.

Saknika

The Committee Staff Gaian


xGollyEmma

PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 11:44 am


Eebie
It'll never pass stressed !! America about EQUALITY domokun . It wouldn't make ANY sense to pass laws with the intention to discriminate! It's still outrageous this is even an issue. Only one vote saved us?? That's just-I'm baffeled. I don't even know wut to say. I'm just glad it wasn't passed xp .


It doesn't matter if people have the right to equality.
It's obvious that Bush doesn't really believe in equality for all Americans...especially tax paying Americans.
Which pisses me off...
"I'll take your money, but I won't let you marry."
That's how I feel that is how America is right now.

I wish people were as open minded as all of us.
*sighs*
PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 1:16 pm


Saknika

And know why it can't pass? Here's my thoughts, and I'm going to send them to my senator as well!

I fully support our first constitutional right to the freedom of religion. Just because Christianity and Catholism, and other religions probably, ban gay marriage doesn't mean they all do. As far as I know, Paganism and Wiccanism both allow for it. There are probably others as well. So a constitutional ban would be violating the first amendment right. Definately not cool. And then the state should be made to give the marriage lisence to the couple as well. You can spend a ton of money on a wedding of any sort, and just because you're gay they won't give you the lisence. That's wrong. And some of you may go for civil unions, well, that's nice and all except it doesn't give the same rights as legal marriage does. Definately not fair.


I'm pagan and we fully embrace gay marriage. About half the pagans I know aren't even hetero, not to say that paganism is a gay religion. The basic idea behind paganism is equality between all things (people, animals, earth, sky etc). And you might want to point out that right now Wicca and Paganism are the two fastest growing religions in north america (faster then christianity and catholism).

VampireNekoChan


Saknika

The Committee Staff Gaian

PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 7:00 pm


VampireNekoChan
Saknika

And know why it can't pass? Here's my thoughts, and I'm going to send them to my senator as well!

I fully support our first constitutional right to the freedom of religion. Just because Christianity and Catholism, and other religions probably, ban gay marriage doesn't mean they all do. As far as I know, Paganism and Wiccanism both allow for it. There are probably others as well. So a constitutional ban would be violating the first amendment right. Definately not cool. And then the state should be made to give the marriage lisence to the couple as well. You can spend a ton of money on a wedding of any sort, and just because you're gay they won't give you the lisence. That's wrong. And some of you may go for civil unions, well, that's nice and all except it doesn't give the same rights as legal marriage does. Definately not fair.


I'm pagan and we fully embrace gay marriage. About half the pagans I know aren't even hetero, not to say that paganism is a gay religion. The basic idea behind paganism is equality between all things (people, animals, earth, sky etc). And you might want to point out that right now Wicca and Paganism are the two fastest growing religions in north america (faster then christianity and catholism).

I will definately do that! Thanks for the info. biggrin
Reply
The Gaian Gay Straight Alliance

Goto Page: 1 2 [>] [»|]
 
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum