It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Gay Marriage Amendment Defeated 50-48

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 12:23 PM
Senate Scuttles Amendment Banning Same-Sex Marriage

The Senate dealt an election-year defeat Wednesday to a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, rejecting pleas from President Bush and fellow conservatives that the measure was needed to safeguard an institution that has flourished for thousands of years.

The vote was 48-50, 12 short of the 60 needed to keep the measure alive.

You have to register with the Washington Post to read the article.

Bush is desparately trying to distract the voters from the real issues in this election -- the Iraq War and the economy. He loves to trot out wedge issues like gay marriage to inflame emotions and change the subject.

60 votes were required to pass this constitutional amendment in the Senate. Bush couldn't even get a majority.

Correction: This was a procedural vote to bring the amendment to the Senate floor. 60 votes were required on this procedural vote. 67 votes would be required to actually pass the constitutional amendment in the Senate.

[edit on 7/14/2004 by donguillermo]

[edit on 7/14/2004 by donguillermo]

[edit on 7/14/2004 by donguillermo]

[edit on 7/14/2004 by donguillermo]

posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 01:16 PM
Not even all the republicans voted for it, how sad is that!

posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 01:19 PM
The way I read it, it would mean that half the Senetors are not against gay marriage. That's a good thing. Did I read it wrong?

posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 01:19 PM
If we had a happy-dance smiley, I'd be using that right now.
Excellent news!!!

posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 01:19 PM
Courtesy of NTodd at Eschaton, here is the Senate roll call vote on the Gay Marriage Amendment.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes

posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 01:23 PM
5 Republicans voted against it. Nice to see some politicians will still vote their conscience.

posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 01:37 PM
Intrepid - It may not mean that half the senators are not opposed to gay marriage. It may mean rather that half the senators think that amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage is too radical a step.

posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 02:33 PM
Awsome News!

Great day for homosexuals, allies, the United States Constitution, and state's rights.

Good to know some Republicans still vote for what's right too!

May Peace Travel With You!

posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 02:36 PM
So call me dense, but what does this actually mean? Is this the first step to each state being able to decide for itself?

posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 03:06 PM
I suppose Edwards and Kerry are gone campaining, since they were the only no votes.

What's the deal with the Dems who voted Yea for this bill? I'd expect that from good ol' boy Byrd, but what about the others?

posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 04:28 PM
This was funny to me.

Top 10 OTHER constitutional amendments
by John in DC - 10:54 AM

Here are the top 10 suggestions you guys made for other constitutional amendments the Congress can now consider:

10. Amend the constitution to ban divorcees and adulterers from ever being involved in any legislation purported to "protect" marriage.

9. There is a perfectly good amendment to consider, the Equal Rights Amendment.

8. When considering the rights and privileges of citizens, homosexuals shall be considered 3/5ths a person.

7. An amendment requiring all Republicans to undergo sensitivity training.

6. The consumption of meat of any cloven-hooved animal is prohibited in the Christian States of America, in accordance with Biblical law. This especially includes Christmas hams and Monday night spare ribs. Violators will be stoned to death in the town square by toddlers.

5. Marriage in the United States of American shall not consist of any person and a box turtle. Marriage consisting of shrimp, lobster, box turtles or any other hard shelled creature shall be null and void in accordance with Leviticus 20.

4. Any person elected to the presidency must pass an eighth grade literacy test.

3. In recognition of their previously stated desire to leave and the complete lack of any positive contribution to the Union, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and South Carolina are hereby excluded from the Union.

2. Ban all republicans.

1. There shall be no DIVORCE. ALL adulterers shall be stoned.

posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 05:38 PM
here's the problem: it doesn't matter if a state decides (through a vote) that they don't want to allow gay marriage, cuz you'll aloways have activist judges or outright criminals like the mayor of san francisco. in california the entire state held a vote to determine if gay marriage would be allowed, the vote came out banning gay marriage. however, being the liberal he is, the mayor of san francisco basically said kiss my ass voters and began marrying gay couples. now if that isn't a slap in the face of democracy and the power of voting then i don't know what is. if a state votes to allow gay marriage, then fine, that should hold. but a state wide vote AGAINST gay marriage should hold just as much.

posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 05:44 PM
Now I'm totally confused. California voted against gay marriage and 5 senetors from NEW ENGLAND voted for it? WTF?

posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 09:20 AM
link your saying that if the people were to vote, say, back in the 1950's on some Amendment banning African Americans from marrying Caucasians and the people voted for it that you would have no problem with it. I think there is a certain point where things come to the point of simple human rights. If people voted against Gay marriage its a simple slap in the face of humanity, democracy aside, because maybe people sometimes need to be told what is right.

I know everyone will now ask: Who is to decide what is right and wrong?

Well, if African Americans were not allowed to marry others, or have their Rights, and the people of the US democratically decide to not give them their Rights (as Im sure they would have done) someone would need to stand up and do something non-democratic to stop it.

Just my 2 cents!

[edit on 15-7-2004 by Jazzerman]

posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 09:47 AM

There is still hope!


posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 10:05 AM
The entire point of this legislation was a political attempt by republicans to get democratic legislators to vote yes so they could use the vote against them in the election. Whatever your feeling on the subject, the legislation was never sincere in any way, shape or form. At the time of this post I was preceeded by 14 other posts, which have been duped into believing this amendment had meaning.

My only reason for posting about this nonsense was to refer you to another thread that IMHO is 100 times more important, but is being ignored.

Wake Up People.


log in