Keeping Gays Down

Discussing all things political in NW Arkansas and beyond.
Post Reply
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8193
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Keeping Gays Down

Post by Dardedar »

Feingold Statement on Handling of Gay Marriage Ban

by SusanG

Thu May 18, 2006

In response to the Senate Judiciary Committee's kerfuffle regarding the proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (blogged below today), Sen. Russ Feingold has issued the following statement:

Objecting to the Judiciary Committee's Handling of the Constitutional Amendment on Marriage

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 went forward with the markup over my objection. Unfortunately, the Majority Leader has set a politically motivated schedule for floor consideration of this measure that the Chairman felt compelled to follow, even though he says he opposes the amendment.

Constitutional amendments deserve the most careful and deliberate consideration of any matter that comes before the Senate. In addition to hearings and a subcommittee markup, such a measure should be considered by the Judiciary Committee in the light of day, open to the press and the public, with cameras present so that the whole country can see what is done. Open and deliberate debate on such an important matter cannot take place in a setting such as the one chosen by the Chairman of the Committee today.

The Constitution of the United States is an historic guarantee of individual freedom. It has served as a beacon of hope, an example to people around the world who yearn to be free and to live their lives without government interference in their most basic human decisions. I took an oath when I joined this body to support and defend the Constitution. I will continue to fight this mean-spirited, divisive, poorly drafted, and misguided amendment when it comes to the Senate floor.
***

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/5/18/16392/8661
.
.
Image
.
.
Image
.
.
DAR
Here is what Jack Cafferty (CNN) had to say today about this:

***
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?"

http://crooksandliars.com/
Barbara Fitzpatrick
Posts: 2232
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:55 am
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0

Post by Barbara Fitzpatrick »

Good for Russ Feingold - I thought well of him back when I lived in WI and have had no reason to change my opinion. To answer Cafferty's question, it is never the right time to consider a Constitutional Amendment on gay or any other kind of marriage. Marriage as a civil issue (assigning responsibility for "issue" and an orderly transfer of estates) is a state's right. Marriage as in "holy matrimony" is a religious one. A marriage amendment would violate/re-define both the 1st and 10th amendments of the Bill of Rights, and put a serious dent in privacy rights as well.

Spector and McCain are both great disappointments to me. I keep hoping the more or less sane, more or less moderate, Republicans will take their party back & these two talk the talk. Unfortunately, neither of them walks the walk. The only one who did (Jeffords) finally bolted the party.
Barbara Fitzpatrick
Post Reply