Senate Shouting Match Over Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/18/06 at 1:10pm

Slimy flip-flopper Arlen Specter ("I don't need to be lectured by you. You are no more a protector of the Constitution than am I...If you want to leave, good riddance") vs handsome principled Russ Feingold ("I've enjoyed your lecture, too, Mr. Chairman. See ya")--who do YOU think won?

Feingold walked out because Specter moved the discussion from the Senate floor, where it would be public, to a tiny room with no spectators and barely enough seats for the senators.

The evil amendment is unlikely to pass the Senate--it's just a midterm-election gambit so that Republican senators can kiss the smelly asses of the Gay Haters of so-called Christian Right, whose support the GOP is losing.

The proposed amendment reads in part:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman....Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

NOTE: the phrase "legal incidents thereof" would effectively BAN domestic-partnership agreements as well.

Snippet:

===

Feingold, Specter Clash Over Gay Marriage

By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer 46 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - A Senate committee approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage Thursday, after a shouting match that ended when one Democrat strode out and the Republican chairman bid him "good riddance."

"I don't need to be lectured by you. You are no more a protector of the Constitution than am I," Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., shouted after Sen. Russ Feingold (news, bio, voting record) declared his opposition to the amendment, his affinity for the Constitution and his intention to leave the meeting.

"If you want to leave, good riddance," Specter finished.

"I've enjoyed your lecture, too, Mr. Chairman," replied Feingold, D-Wis., who is considering a run for president in 2008. "See ya."

Amid increasing partisan tension over
President Bush's judicial nominees and domestic wiretapping, the panel voted along party lines to send the constitutional amendment — which would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages — to the full Senate, where it stands little chance of passing.

Democrats complained that bringing up the amendment is a purely political move designed to appeal to the GOP's conservative base in this year of midterm elections. Under the domed ceiling of the ornate and historic President's Room off the Senate floor, senators voted 10-8 to send the measure forward.

Among Feingold's objections was Specter's decision to hold the vote in the President's Room, where access by the general public is restricted, instead of in the panel's usual home in the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
Feingold, Specter Clash Over Gay Marriage

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/18/06 at 1:19pm

Senator Feingold's statement:

"Today's markup of the constitutional amendment concerning marriage, in a small room off the Senate floor with only a handful of people other than Senators and their staffs present, was an affront to the Constitution. I objected to its consideration in such an inappropriate setting and refused to help make a quorum. I am deeply disappointed that the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee [Specter] went forward with the markup over my objection."

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 5/18/06 at 1:26pm

Ah, Feingold. Where are all the other Democrat Congressmen/women who can share your fire and spirit?

Specter's just another McCain. Everyone wants to make him out to be this radical, unpredictable Republican maverick who may or may not disagree with the Administration on what's right and what's wrong but, at the end of the day - and just like McCain, I might add -, Arlen knows which side of his bread is buttered.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 5/18/06 at 1:32pm

It's just so blatant how wrong this amendment is. It's so clear how anyone who sides against gay marriage will end up on the wrong side of history. It's sad.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 5/18/06 at 1:49pm

Where is Hillary in all of this? I hope to God she doesn't get the nomination. I don't want 8 more years of "don't ask.don't tell" politics.

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 5/18/06 at 1:51pm

I think people jump all over clinton a bit strongly for the don't-ask signing. Wasn't there every indication that enough votes existed in Congress to overturn a DADT veto? You lose political clout even more if your veto gets reversed.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 5/18/06 at 1:55pm

I firmly believe that Clinton signed DADT and DOMA to prevent harsher legislation.

I'm not sure what I think of Hill's tactics. If they are merely tactics to get elected--I'm for whatever it takes. But, if she really does get all Republican on us, I will be very saddened.

However, I'm all for a bold, brave Dem like Feingold proving that you can win the Presidency by being true to your liberal values. Clinton won supporting gays. Why can't any other Dem?

And, why do people keep forgetting that these elections were extremely close (if even legit)?

[Unknown User]

Posted: 5/18/06 at 1:55pm

Not to worry. He drove to the center and kept all his political clout. His political clout and a wink will get you discharged fom the military.
Updated On: 5/18/06 at 01:55 PM

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 5/18/06 at 1:56pm

Go Russ. This is such a political ploy by Specter and co-horts!

[Unknown User]

Posted: 5/18/06 at 1:58pm

He got our vote and we got DADT and DOMA...May I have some more sir?
Updated On: 5/18/06 at 01:58 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/18/06 at 1:58pm

I know papalovesmambo is going to say "Please, mommy, please" again, but GORE/FEINGOLD '08 is looking mighty yummy.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 5/18/06 at 2:04pm

chita, do you realize what would have happened if Clinton had railed against the Republicans and removed the ban on gays in the military? If he had vetoed DOMA? It would not have been pretty.

I'm not happy with it either. I'd like to believe that we live in a world where a President could have done those things with no harsh consequences. But we don't. But just remember that's it's the same system that prevents the American Taliban from making our lives worse. Progress is slow.

[SueSnell]

Posted: 5/18/06 at 2:05pm

Have someone change it to read that once married, no divorce is available. EVER. PERIOD. No Anullments. It's a sacred contract- adulterers or people seeking divorce should be killed.
That would be the end of it.

Move up here to Canada- we could use more artists. And we (for now anyway) recognize gay marriage!

[Calvin]

Posted: 5/18/06 at 2:05pm

I don't know why everyone is so sure this won't go anywhere. There are a lot of spineless, worthless people in the Senate. Hillary would vote for this in a heartbeat if she thought it would earn her evangelical votes. I mean, even Howard Dean's been pandering to the 700 Club. (BTW -- see that Pat Robertson is warning that a tsunami is going to hit the U.S. this year?)

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/18/06 at 2:07pm

No, Calvin. There's not a chance that this constitutional amendment would pass. It would have to get 2/3 of the Congress and then get ratified by 3/4 of the states.

It's simply a typical KARL ROVE manoeuver to pander to the Gay Haters and get them to vote.

Updated On: 5/18/06 at 02:07 PM

[Calvin]

Posted: 5/18/06 at 2:11pm

They call me a cockeyed pessimist.

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 5/18/06 at 2:14pm

I'm far too willing to believe that a majority of the states would ratify this Constitutional Amendment to toss it off only to politics. Let's be honest: even though these people will do anything for votes, they're not blowing smoke up our butts with this. If they can get it passed, they will follow through.

[Magdalene]

Posted: 5/18/06 at 2:26pm

It would never be ratified, which is a good thing.
The Gore part of Gore/Feingold scares the bejesus out of me---can't stand Gore.
Would actually campaign for Barak Obama.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/18/06 at 2:47pm

Magdalene--Lots of people who felt that way about Gore are evolving--much to their surprise!

It's an interesting thing--he was so vilified by the media (orchestrated, again, by Karl Rove) that people made assumptions about him that were never really true.

Now, after 6 years in the "wilderness," he's coming back a changed man. And after 6 years of tyranny and corruption, we're changed too.

There's one thing the Americans love more than taking someone down off a pedestal...and that's a COMEBACK.

Worked for Nixon, worked for Clinton...could work for Gore.

Not my first choice, but it will be interesting to watch.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/18/06 at 2:51pm

But this thread is not about Al Gore--it's about woofy, principled Russ Feingold.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 5/18/06 at 2:54pm

woof is right. He's got my vote.


edit: could you imagine that gore/feingold combo. can someone say menover30.com
Updated On: 5/18/06 at 02:54 PM

[ZONEACE]

Posted: 5/18/06 at 3:36pm

Spectre confuses me so much. He goes from "mr. only republican to publican decry Shrubby's illegal activities" to "fag basher" so quickly.


oh, and Feingold better be on the democratic ticket in some way in 2 years.

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 5/18/06 at 3:40pm

And after 6 years of tyranny and corruption, we're changed too.

PJ, I misread one word in your sentence up there and thought, "now, THERE'S a rumor I wish would stick about Bush."

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/19/06 at 12:04am

Jack Cafferty on CNN:

Jack Cafferty: Wolf, Today's lesson in hypocrisy comes to us courtesy of the Senate Judiciary Committee. They met in a different private room behind closed doors today and approved a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. at one point the thing got pretty ugly. A shouting match, between the Republican Chairman Senator Arlen Spector and Democratic Senator Russ Feingold, who said he was against the Amendment as well as Spector's decision to hold the vote in a private room out of the public's view.

These guys are shameless. Feingold eventually stormed out telling Spector "I've enjoyed your lecture Mr Chairman. See ya."

Senator Spector in a real show of courage, says that he is "totally opposed to the Amendment", but he voted for it anyway saying that it deserves a debate in the Senate. Majority Leader Bill Frist says the full Senate will now debate a Constitutional Amendment which has absolutely no chance of passing. Frist hopes to have a vote by June 5th.

This is all being done by the republican majority in an effort to appeal to Right-wing nuts in the Republican Party ahead of the upcoming mid-term elections. Ignore all of the pressing issues facing the country, and instead go grovel at the feet of the lunatic fringe. Senator Frist should be very proud of himself. That's leadership. Here's the question: Is now the time for the Senate to consider a constitutional Amendment on gay marriage?"

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 5/19/06 at 12:13am

I saw this tonight, and I was really pleasant surprised by Cafferty. He essentially wrote off banning gay marriage as nuts--as something only the freaks on the fringe would support. Wow!