perks' political perkspective, the votes are in.

[perks]

50%-48% only twelve votes away from Americans losing one of their freedoms; that's too close in my book.

All Votes Grouped by Home State

Alabama: Sessions (R-AL), Yea Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Nay
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Nay Pryor (D-AR), Nay
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Yea Campbell (R-CO), Nay
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (D-CT), Nay
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Carper (D-DE), Nay
Florida: Graham (D-FL), Nay Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Miller (D-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Nay Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Yea Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Breaux (D-LA), Nay Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Nay Snowe (R-ME), Nay
Maryland: Mikulski (D-MD), Nay Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Not Voting
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), Yea Dayton (D-MN), Nay
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Lott (R-MS), Yea
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea Talent (R-MO), Yea
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Nay Burns (R-MT), Yea
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Nay
New Jersey: Corzine (D-NJ), Nay Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Domenici (R-NM), Yea
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Nay
North Carolina: Dole (R-NC), Yea Edwards (D-NC), Not Voting
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Nay Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Ohio: DeWine (R-OH), Yea Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Oklahoma: Inhofe (R-OK), Yea Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Nay
Pennsylvania: Santorum (R-PA), Yea Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Chafee (R-RI), Nay Reed (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina: Graham (R-SC), Yea Hollings (D-SC), Nay
South Dakota: Daschle (D-SD), Nay Johnson (D-SD), Nay
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Frist (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Jeffords (I-VT), Nay Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Virginia: Allen (R-VA), Yea Warner (R-VA), Yea
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Nay Murray (D-WA), Nay
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Yea Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Wyoming: Enzi (R-WY). Yea Thomas (R-WY), Yea

 

[tulip2lipservice]

hey featherduster...

and what is it they are voting on?

Peace,
Tulip

 

[lovetoread]

It was stupid to even come up for a vote.

 

[Eumenides]

The vote was on the proposed ammendment that would define marriage as being only between a man and a woman, and would thusly, ban gay marriage nation-wide.

 

[tulip2lipservice]

I truly do not see the harm

in allowing two people who are devoted and in love with the other to be able to share medical and benefits that a married couple would have.

Thanks Eumenides.

Peace,
Tulip

 

[Eumenides]

Re: I truly do not see the harm

in allowing two people who are devoted and in love with the other to be able to share medical and benefits that a married couple would have.

Thanks Eumenides.

Peace,
Tulip

It's not about being able to see the harm in it, it's about taking away basic civil liberties from citizens of this country.

 

[Queersetti]

50%-48% only twelve votes away from Americans losing one of their freedoms; that's too close in my book.

It wasn't all that close when you consider that they needed to get 60 votes, not 50, to move the amendment forward.

 

[perks]

Re: Re: perks' political perkspective, the votes are in.

It wasn't all that close when you consider that they needed to get 60 votes, not 50, to move the amendment forward.

it's still closer than I like, that's still too many people saying its okay to take civil liberties away from American citizens.

 

[Queersetti]

Re: Re: Re: perks' political perkspective, the votes are in.

it's still closer than I like, that's still too many people saying its okay to take civil liberties away from American citizens.

I'm certainly with you, there, darling!

I think that it's disgraceful that someone who advocates removing any group of Americans rights can be elected to the US Senate from any state.

 

[intrigued]

Re: Re: Re: Re: perks' political perkspective, the votes are in.

I'm certainly with you, there, darling!

I think that it's disgraceful that someone who advocates removing any group of Americans rights can be elected to the US Senate from any state.

*nods*

 

[mstryninja]

The vote was on the proposed ammendment that would define marriage as being only between a man and a woman, and would thusly, ban gay marriage nation-wide.

Why oh why can't they just let people love each other regardless of race, creed, gender etc...
So was that for or against?
Oh okay didn't pass got it.

 

[nasty1]

Why oh why can't they just let people love each other regardless of race, creed, gender etc...

Hear, hear.

 

[tulip2lipservice]

Re: Re: I truly do not see the harm

It's not about being able to see the harm in it, it's about taking away basic civil liberties from citizens of this country.

Perhaps I need to ellaborate. If two people of legal age are in love and want to spend their lives together as a married couple than why can't they? I think it has been unfair for couples not "married" in the eyes of the law not to have the same rights as married couples. This is in reference to pensions, medical benefits, et al. I just do not see why there needs to be a vote. It should just be.

Perks you are right about it being scary but then again there are so many states that are conservative and not as open about gay marriages. People tend to be that way because of fear and ignorance. Politicians are probably voting this way because of an election year coming up and not for the benefit for its citizens.

Peace,
Tulip

 

[Grizzman]

Re: Re: Re: I truly do not see the harm

Perhaps I need to ellaborate. If two people of legal age are in love and want to spend their lives together as a married couple than why can't they? I think it has been unfair for couples not "married" in the eyes of the law not to have the same rights as married couples. This is in reference to pensions, medical benefits, et al. I just do not see why there needs to be a vote. It should just be.

Perks you are right about it being scary but then again there are so many states that are conservative and not as open about gay marriages. People tend to be that way because of fear and ignorance. Politicians are probably voting this way because of an election year coming up and not for the benefit for its citizens.

Peace,
Tulip

Or maybe they're voting that way because they're representing the citizens?
And what civil liberty is being taken away from the citizens with the proposed amendment? To my knowledge, it will not make same sex partners unable to live together, love together, or make a life together. (life, love, the persuit of happiness and all that such)
If anything, maybe legislation should be passed that requires insurance companies to allow gay partners to share plans.
Marriage is a religous commitment ya know. Our government didn't create it. And I don't know of a religion that condones same sex unions. The politicians are correct for trying to declare marraige as between partners. The problem is it shouldn't be in the government's declarations in the first place.

 

[SIN'til8?]

I can't wait to marry my Ewe...

 

[SIN'til8?]

Not to mention that hot 12 year-old down the street...

 

[SIN'til8?]

Poligamy RULES!

This is gonna be so cool...

 

[zipman]

Re: Re: Re: Re: I truly do not see the harm

Or maybe they're voting that way because they're representing the citizens?
And what civil liberty is being taken away from the citizens with the proposed amendment? To my knowledge, it will not make same sex partners unable to live together, love together, or make a life together. (life, love, the persuit of happiness and all that such)
If anything, maybe legislation should be passed that requires insurance companies to allow gay partners to share plans.
Marriage is a religous commitment ya know. Our government didn't create it. And I don't know of a religion that condones same sex unions. The politicians are correct for trying to declare marraige as between partners. The problem is it shouldn't be in the government's declarations in the first place.

Newsflash: The USA is not a theocracy.

Personally, I love how the Bush administration is saying that it is for families and marriage, as long as you're not gay. It is the ultimate hypocrisy.

 

[ksmybuttons]

Re: Re: Re: Re: I truly do not see the harm

Or maybe they're voting that way because they're representing the citizens?
And what civil liberty is being taken away from the citizens with the proposed amendment? To my knowledge, it will not make same sex partners unable to live together, love together, or make a life together. (life, love, the persuit of happiness and all that such)
If anything, maybe legislation should be passed that requires insurance companies to allow gay partners to share plans.
Marriage is a religous commitment ya know. Our government didn't create it. And I don't know of a religion that condones same sex unions. The politicians are correct for trying to declare marraige as between partners. The problem is it shouldn't be in the government's declarations in the first place.

You made the point. Marriage is a religious commitment. Therefore, it shouldn't be legislated. Separation of church and state and all that...

For some of us, religion didn't play a part in our marriage. The husband and I were married by a Judge and we made a spiritual not a religious commitment to each other and the State sanctioned it.

Shouldn't all people have that available to them?

Edited to add that my state senators did vote to reflect the mood of our state - the rural senator voted yes and the urban senator voted no...

 

[SIN'til8?]

Zip - Did you read my post on the goals of the Utopians?

Destroy the common culture and the ally of the people against the State, their faith.

3 to 7 percent of the total population gets to dictate what they want to the rest of us because Liberal Judges in Massachussetts decided, fuck the people and their assembly, we make the laws here and here's the new one. Anybody can marry anybody...

Even BusyBody!

 

[ubertroll]

I'm pretty sure it would have needed a 2/3rds majority in BOTH houses. It's not QUITE 12 votes...

but it'll certainly be more in February

 

[SIN'til8?]

This is one of the reasons Bush will win with about 60% of the vote come November...

 

[DevilishTexan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: perks' political perkspective, the votes are in.

I'm certainly with you, there, darling!

I think that it's disgraceful that someone who advocates removing any group of Americans rights can be elected to the US Senate from any state.

Agrees.

 

[Grizzman]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I truly do not see the harm

Newsflash: The USA is not a theocracy.

Personally, I love how the Bush administration is saying that it is for families and marriage, as long as you're not gay. It is the ultimate hypocrisy.

What are they saying is for families and marraige?

 

[Grizzman]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I truly do not see the harm

You made the point. Marriage is a religious commitment. Therefore, it shouldn't be legislated. Separation of church and state and all that...

For some of us, religion didn't play a part in our marriage. The husband and I were married by a Judge and we made a spiritual not a religious commitment to each other and the State sanctioned it.

Shouldn't all people have that available to them?

Edited to add that my state senators did vote to reflect the mood of our state - the rural senator voted yes and the urban senator voted no...

Why should it be the states' responsibility to sanction anybodies union is my point. I think the problem is that the federal government is addressing the wrong issue.