Log in

No account? Create an account
Recent Entries Friends Archive Profile ScrapBook my other bloggy thingy
Marriage Protection Act Blocked by Senate

I feel that this just goes to show that the system does work. The Marriage Protection Act didn't pass. Despite the fact that it was backed by the white house and that republicans hold the majority in the senate.

Republicans had hoped to win at least a simple majority in favor of proceeding with the amendment but were thwarted when six of their own colleagues joined all but three Democrats in voting to scuttle the measure without a vote on its substance.

I applaud those 6 republicans for voting how they felt, not just with their party. Likewise, too, for the 3 democrats.

According to the article, the act may now move to the house of reps. Hopefully it will have the same results. To put something like this in the constitution is an abuse of what it was set up to be. The constitution was set up to help us maintain our rights, not to take those rights away.

"No one wants to discriminate against gays," responded Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah). "Simply put, we want to preserve traditional marriage."

Fine - Churches all over the USA can refuse to marry people. The State has a responsibility to provide equal rights to all of our citizens. The State cannot refuse to grant these people civil unions.

I would rather have a civil union if it meant that my gay friends could have the same rights I do.

The Government is not to teach morality. It should bolster civic duty, but it should not determine who's morals are correct and who's are wrong. I think EVERYBODY needs to realize this. The government doesn't have to say that homosexuality is right, it doesn't have to say that it's wrong. We have the responsibility to make that desicion on our own. But the government does need to provide for the rights of its people.
I am also very happy about what happened today. To clarify, though, the vote today was not on the amendment itself, it was on whether or not to end the debate and go ahead and vote on it. Some of the 6 Republicans who voted not to end the debate would have voted yes on the amendment. Similarly, some of the 3 Democrats (ok, the two who are not Zell Miller) voted to end the debate and would have voted no on the amendment.
Thank you for the clarification! Even still, the point still stands that people do vote for what they believe and not just with their party (I know this isn't new or anything, but I think at times we need to be reminded about it because it does matter and it does prove that just because republicans hold the majority doesn't mean they all think alike).

At least the debate is continuing. I just hope that enough people will realise that the constitution is not a place for denying people rights.
I agree, it is good. Not to be a downer again, but some of the Republicans who voted against it (like, say, McCain) were doing so in their belief in states rights (a very classical conservative/libertarian idea) more than their approval of gay marriage. But hey, in this case we'll take what we can get, right?
I'm not sure that that's a bad thing. Maybe it's because I become more of a raving libertarian with every passing day, but I think that ultimately, any decisions a government makes, any laws it enacts, any Constitutional alteration it considers, should be done purely on the basis of establishing individual rights in the most egalitarian manner possible.

The role of government is not to put its stamp of approval on either the heterosexual OR homosexual lifestyle. The proper role of government is to ensure that all individuals can make lifestyle choices for themselves so long as they don't hurt anyone else.

Thus, John McCain's personal religious/cultural beliefs on gay marriage are moot, and that's how it should be. When politicians vote on issues because of their personal religious/cultural beliefs, rather than on the basis of protecting individual freedom, they are imposing those beliefs on the entire country. And that's wrong no matter how they vote.

This issue shouldn't be about cultural acceptance of homosexuality- that will come by itself. Culture will sort itself out eventually. This issue should be about the rights of consenting adults to enter into a civil contract, just like any other civil-rights issue of the last hundred years. The civil rights movement was about the right of adults to use the same public facilities as everyone else, regardless of their skin tone. The government has no proper role in telling white people what they should *think* about it, only that they must not prevent black people from excercising their rights.

And really, why should anyone, gay or straight, feel that they need a politician's personal approval of who they sleep with? Demanding approval of one's lifestyle implies that it's someone else's business. It's not. We cannot demand that the government stay out of our bedrooms because "it's no one's business but our own" and simultaneously demand approval of what we do there. The whole point of it being no one else's business is that you DON'T need approval from someone else. Ultimately, "mind your own business" will secure more rights for gay AND straight people than societal approval ever will.

I'm glad that the debate over The Marriage Protection Act stopped, the only thing that I am worried about is that when it goes to be voted on that it will pass. I believe everyone has the right to marry who they want and if the Churches don't want to do its then to bad for them.
>Fine - Churches all over the USA can refuse to marry people. The >State has a responsibility to provide equal rights to all of our >citizens. The State cannot refuse to grant these people civil unions.

You are 100% on target. I don't think I've ever heard someone put it quite as concisely and perfectly as you just did. Most of the supporters are doing so to preserve to so-called "sanctity of marriage," but yet, this is marriage in a Christian sense that they are looking to preserve. Marriage exists in very diverse forms and in every society in the world (in fact, as many Anthropologists have noted, it is one of the few institutions that seems to exist everywhere), and of course, because of this, the definition of what marriage is will differ from place to place (and religion to religion). To define marriage as marriage in a Christian sense of the world is oppressive not only to homosexuals, but to non-Christians as well. It is the DUTY of the state to grant the same rights and privileges to any two people who wish to form a marriage/civil union/whatever you want to call it. If churches don't want to marry a couple for whatever reason, fine. They are private institutions, and participation is optional. However, to take the narrowly defined values of a church and apply those same values at the level of the government (it NOT being optional to be a resident of a city/state/nation and abide by the laws of a goverment) is completely unacceptable.