|Federal Anti-Gay Amendment Approved For Senate Vote
||[May. 18th, 2006|11:16 am]
Standing up for the U.S. Standing up for US.
OH HOW I LOVE THIS MAN!!!
He's so fabulous he deserves to be an honorary gay man.
In a late move Wednesday the committee meeting was moved from a public hearing room to a restricted-access room in the Capitol. The President’s Room is not open to the public and does not have enough chairs for every Senator on the committee to sit.
Debate was short but intense. At one point Committee chair Arlen Specter (R-Pa) and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) became embroiled in a shouting match when Feingold accused Specter of writing discrimination into the Constitution.
"I don't need to be lectured by you. You are no more a protector of the Constitution than am I," Specter shouted.
"If you want to leave, good riddance!"
UPDATE: "I've enjoyed your lecture, too, Mr. Chairman," replied Feingold, D-Wisconsin, who is considering a run for president in 2008. "See ya."
ATTENTION MR. SPECTER: Ehem. *Cough* Ehem.
Upon taking office, Senators-elect must swear or affirm that they will "support and defend the Constitution." The president of the Senate or a surrogate administers the oath to newly elected or re-elected Senators. The oath is required by the Constitution; the wording is prescribed by law.
Here's some further information about the proposed amendment in its current form (pulled from the first link on this post):
The proposed amendment would bar same-sex couples from marrying, block courts and state legislatures allowing gay marriage, nullify marriages already performed in Massachusetts - the only state in the country where they are currently legal - and according to critics possibly block civil unions and override domestic partner laws.
The amendment was introduced by Senator Wayne Allard and reads: "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."
The second sentence, which could be used to broaden the scope to include civil unions and partner benefits, could be removed before the issue comes to a full Senate vote. Some GOP amendment supporters have indicated they would vote against the measure if the sentence remains.
Either way, any amendment blocking gay marriage is being fought by most Democrats and LGBT civil rights groups.
I feel it bears repeating. I. LOVE. (<3). SENATOR. FEINGOLD!!!!!
x-posted to my journal.