Tuesday, June 06, 2006

CT Senators Oppose Federal Marriage Amendment

From today's CT Post:


The two Connecticut Democrats said they would vote against the resolution now under debate in the U.S. Senate as they did two years ago, when a similar resolution was rejected.

"I have opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment when it has come up in the past and I will oppose it again, because I believe it should be up to each state to define marriage within its own borders," Lieberman said.

*****

Marvin Fast, a spokesman for Dodd, said that the senator remains firmly opposed to a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and stands behind his statements made on the Senate floor two years ago in opposition to a similar resolution.

During that debate, Dodd argued that adoption of the resolution would be "a step backward for all Americans concerned with the Constitution" because it would deny rather than confer rights upon individuals.


I'm not surprised that our Senators are opposed. Scapegoating Gays and Lesbians won't win them any political points at home. I'm still convinced that this amendment won't even come up for a full vote in the Senate. Bill Frist must know that he doesn't have the votes.

It's interesting to note that both Dodd and Lieberman voted in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act which defines the terms 'marriage' and 'spouse' as a union between one man and one woman for federal purposes. That was back in 1996. I have to wonder if they'd vote the same way today. Their personal views may not have changed, but the political climate certainly has.

Sources

Urban, Peter. "Dodd, Lieberman nix amendment on same-sex marriage". Connecticut Post. 6/6/06


H.R.3396, "Defense of Marriage Act". The Library of Congress Thomas.

30 comments:

turfgrrl said...

GC write Their personal views may not have changed, but the political climate certainly has.

It's a generational thing as well, a gallup poll revealed that 54% of people under 40 "accepting the morality of homosexuality compared to 32 percent of seniors."

tparty said...

Lieberman's position on same-sex marriage in 2003 (running for president) was: "Although I am opposed to gay marriage, I have also long believed that states have the right to adopt for themselves laws that allow same-sex unions."

Ned Lamont's position: "If two people want to get married, God bless them."

BRubenstein said...

Nothing new here..bother Senators opposses a amendment before.

Turfgrrl..you are right on this one, there certainly is a generational gap on the issue and i see it everyday in my work.

Personally while I am over 40, I'm of the opinion that folks ought to be free to marry whom they want.

CTOctaneBlue said...

Just to add to the thought that this is a generational thing- MTV now regularly features gay and lesbian individuals on its dating shows. It makes for some great television! I hope that in a few years, government officials will realize that denying gay marriage is akin to denying women the right to vote, or blacks to use white bathrooms. A gay marriage amendment would just be another way for the "majority" group to deny equal rights to a "minority" group. In fact, the Defense of Marriage Act is already doing just that. Would gay parents really cause the moral decay of their children? Come on! How can Republicans be so ignorant?

Lamont clearly has the best position on this argument- if two people love each other, they should be able to get married. I also agree with Dodd's position (while it is a sort of cop-out), that a constitutional amendment denying rights is not appropriate or acceptable. Lieberman is going to lose votes from young people and progressives with his stance. Unfortunately, his trait of taking one position and sticking to it, regardless of changing times or information, reminds me of someone else, who is now disliked by 71% of the American public.

The more stuff I see about Lieberman on this blog, the more I think that Lamont really has a legit shot to win the primary, where the voters will be more progressive and "hardcore" democrats.

bluecoat said...

Lamont clearly has the best position on this argument- if two people love each other, they should be able to get married. Great!!!...now the federal government supposed to legislate what love is...the government shouldn't be in the marriage business but since it is let any two people who want to marry do it...according to individual state laws....

TSCowperthwait said...

CTOctaneBlue:

How ignorant of you to make the general statement " How can Republicans be so ignorant?"

You have a short memory apparently that Rosa DeLauro has also opposed gay marriage in the past.

And guess what, I am a Republican (who is not gay) and I am opposed to a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Think about any generalizations you want to make before you type...

ctkeith said...

The solution is simple,

When anyone walks in to whichever Goverment office they get a Civil Union Licence NOT a Marriage Licence.

As far as the state is concerned marriage should be seen as a religious term and therefore it has no place in Government Documents.

After you make that simple change the Equal Potection clause kicks in and ANY 2 people recieve allthe "benefits" of being united.

Note.I've been "married"[Catholic church wedding but I wasn't allowed to recieve the cookie(host)] 21 yrs,thats why the word "benefit" was put in quotes.I got plenty of them but I'm not certain my wife feels the same,lol.

BRubenstein said...

As i said before, any 2 folks ought to have the right to be married.

And when and if the birth rate drops to a dangerous leel..i will be in favor of polygomous marriages,example..( 2 women mary a man)

disgruntled_republican said...

Ummm, well...hmmm..no, this can't be, can it? No way this is possible...I know I haven't been drinking today...did someone drug me? Wow, I really am all here and in a sane state fo mind and I actually agree with ctkeith on something. Marriage is a religous term, plain and simple...

cgg said...

I agree with both CTKeith and DR.

(BTW you two have been agreeing a lot lately. Cut that out already. It freaks me out.)

Brass Anon said...

If two people love each other, they should be able to seal it with a kiss, and get the state to sanction it, if they choose to. However, marriage is for the religious realm. The state really isn't in the business of "marrying" people, it is really in the business of recognizing "civil unions." I'm for civil unions for everyone. Otherwise, the state should stay out of the marrying business and leave that to the priests, reverends, rabbis, and ministers.

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

ctkeith said... "
As far as the state is concerned marriage should be seen as a religious term and therefore it has no place in Government Documents."


For starters no Protestant church considers marriage to be a sacrament. (My wife & I had Communion (not traditional in a Protestant wedding) during our service because that is a sacrament.

Next; the GOP is probably more wrong than right on this issue.

It's certainly no hot button for me; I don't care what you or anyone else is up to so long as you're not bothering me. (Loud motorcycles bother me more than this issue.)

Second; messing around with the Consititution is probably not bright, for if we succeed with this lackluster idea a couple of decades from now the idiot anti-gun crowd will have some ideas of their own. No thanks.

cgg said...

My understanding is the marriage as recognized by Government, predates marriage as recognized by religion. Of course in many early societies government and religion are one and the same. Marriage is more of a practical union than a spiritual one, at least as far as any government is concerned.

If I remember correctly the Catholic church doesn't even insist on being involved in non-royal marriages until the Council of Trent. In Colonial New England marriages are generally performed by a magistrate rather than a minister because the Congregational Church didn't want to get involved. The Southern colonies had weddings at the home of the Bride's family, though a minister did typically officiate.

My point is that the idea of Marriage as a spiritual union is a modern one. That some people are trying to debate marriage in only religious terms annoys me.

Patricia Rice said...

Bruce....In all fairness, what about 2 Men marry 1 Woman?

TrueBlueCT said...

Good God Pat... why must you pick up on the Republican talking points and help to confuse the issue at hand? You sound like Joe Lieberman!

Honestly, it's disgusting the way the Republicans have injected a straw debate about polygamy and polyamory into this very real debate about very real people.

What do you think Pat, should gay people have the same right to couple, under the law, that straight people do?

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

Patricia Rice said... "... what about 2 Men marry 1 Woman?"

Know how to keep an Amish woman happy? Two Mennonite.

Aldon Hynes said...

Random comments:

For starters no Protestant church considers marriage to be a sacrament

Actually, Episcopalians (which are Protestants) consider Marriage a sacrament.

To the extent that Marriage is a religious or sacramental event, the government should not be involved. We need to keep government out of religion and the government should not prevent denominations that want to perform same-sex marriages from performing them.

To the extent that Marriage is a civil contract with implications to taxes, inheritance, visitation rights, etc., it is wrong for the government to discriminate against a group of people wishing to enter such a civil contract because of their sexual orientation.

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

Aldon Hynes said... "
Actually, Episcopalians (which are Protestants) consider Marriage a sacrament."


I stand corrected; however even they refer to the sacraments this way:"The two major sacraments, Baptism and Communion, and called gospel sacraments because Jesus told us (in the gospels) to do them until he comes again. The five sacramental acts (or minor sacraments) are not all necessarily required of all Christians. They are Confirmation, Marriage, Ordination, Reconciliation, and Unction. "


Not that it matters; the point was only that not all religions hold
marriage to be major part of their `business' in the 1st place.

I feel odd agreeing with so many Democrats............

BRubenstein said...

Pat...that would be ok

disgruntled_republican said...

ACR-

I'm with you...almost makes me fell dirty....j/k

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

disgruntled_republican said... "I'm with you...almost makes me fell dirty..."

I'm gonna wash up with anti-bacterial soap...how about you?


-ACR

TSCowperthwait said...

Breaking News...The U.S. Senate has rejected the proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Paul Vance said...

Marriage is not an issue for the Federal Government, I am insulted that the President's pandering is distracting federal officials from issues that should be taken up!

CC said...

How has the political climate changed? I MUST take issue with this statement.

By my count, the issue of accepting gay marriage is 0-13 at the ballot box and more defeats are likely to come. Locally, I think it's fair to say based on our elected officials opposition to a referendum that civil unions may not have passed an up or down statewide vote.

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

Paul Vance said... " I am insulted that the President's pandering is distracting federal officials from issues that should be taken up!"


Yeah sure.

How many days did our legislature fool around with Coca-Cola® in high schools????

Please don't tell me you thought that whole charade was worthwhile.


BTW - I wish you'd have stayed in the race; Murphy's simply a horrible character, but you seem okay.

Gabe said...

CC - The changing political climate almost certainly refer to poll trends like this one:

Gay marriage remains a divisive issue, with 51 percent opposing it, the poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found. But almost two-thirds, 63 percent, opposed gay marriage in February 2004.

"Most Americans still oppose gay marriage, but the levels of opposition are down and the number of strong opponents are down," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center. "This has some implications for the midterm elections if this trend is maintained. There are gay marriage ballot initiatives in numerous states."

...

The number of people who say they strongly oppose gay marriage has dropped from 42 percent in early 2004 to 28 percent now. Strong opposition has dropped sharply among senior citizens and Republicans.

People are now evenly split on allowing adoptions by gay couples and six in 10 now favor allowing gays to serve openly in the military.

Gabe said...

ACR -

Paul Vance said... " I am insulted that the President's pandering is distracting federal officials from issues that should be taken up!"


Yeah sure.

How many days did our legislature fool around with Coca-Cola® in high schools????


You edited out Paul's first line, "Marriage is not an issue for the Federal Government, I am insulted that the President's pandering is distracting federal officials from issues that should be taken up!"

When did the CT legislature become part of the federal government?

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

Gabe said... "When did the CT legislature become part of the federal government?"

Gimme a break; you're spliting hairs & you know it.

The fact is politicos pander to specfic constituencies all the time blocks of voters are like catnip.

-ACR

CC said...

Gabe: Polls aren't necessary or instructive when you have actual votes on record, as you do with the gay marriage referendums. And, the voting results have been OVERWHELMINGLY against gay marriage, even in dark blue states such as Oregon.

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

CC said...

"Polls aren't necessary or instructive when you have actual votes on record, as you do with the gay marriage referendums."

Okay - but no one's done a poll asking;
"Do you actually give a hoot about this issue?"

Where clearly even among church-going conservatives on a national basis the majority answer would be "yawn".

And that is why the whole silly notion failed in the senate.

This whole issue is sooo boring I don't why I even bother to respond now I'm feeling sleeeeeeepy...sooooo sleeeepy.....

[clunk]