Actually, Hillary Clinton fought in 04 Republican effort to permanently deny LGBT marriage rights through their amending the Constitution. So Hillary=Gay Friendly. GOP=Gobs Of Poop

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 19, 2016 4:42 AM GMT
    Mr. President, I have listened with great interest to the debate over the last several days. I believe there are many sincere positions being advocated on this floor on really all sides of this issue, because there are many sides. This is an incredibly important and quite solemn responsibility that we have before us.

    S.J. Res. 40, this joint resolution, proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage. So maybe even more than the usual debate, this calls for each of us to be engaged, to be accurate, and to be thoughtful about the positions we take with respect to this proposed amendment.

    Now, a number of my colleagues have come to the floor to speak about the solemn responsibility that we hold in our hands with respect to amending our Constitution. I am in agreement that the Constitution is a living and working, extraordinary human accomplishment that protects our citizens, grants us the rights that make us free, and we in this body took an oath; we swore to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States.

    So to consider altering this document, one of the greatest documents in the history of humanity, is a responsibility no Member can or should enter into lightly, for what we do here will not only affect our fellow citizens in the year 2004, but it will affect every generation of Americans to come.

    As Henry Clay once observed:

    The Constitution of the United States was made not merely for the generation that then existed, but for posterity--unlimited, undefined, endless, perpetual posterity.

    So we do owe an obligation to those we represent today and to future generations as we embark upon this very solemn undertaking. We should not amend the Constitution to decide any issue that can and will be resolved by less drastic means. We should not amend the Constitution to federalize an issue that has been the province of the States since our founding--in fact, as Senator Kennedy reminded us, even before our founding as a nation.

    I believe marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman. I have had occasion in my life to defend marriage, to stand up for marriage, to believe in the hard work and challenge of marriage. So I take umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage, or to the fundamental bedrock principle that exists between a man and a woman, going back into the midst of history as one of the foundational institutions of history and humanity and civilization, and that its primary, principal role during those millennia has been the raising and socializing of children for the society into which they become adults.

    Now, if we were really concerned about marriage and the fact that so many marriages today end in divorce, and so many children are then put into the incredibly difficult position of having to live with the consequences of divorce, perhaps 20, 30 years ago we should have been debating an amendment to the Federal Constitution to make divorce really, really hard, to take it out of the States' hands and say that we will not liberalize divorce, we will not move toward no-fault divorce, and we will
    make it as difficult as possible because we fear the consequences of liberalizing divorce laws.

    If one looks at the consequences of the numbers of divorces, the breakup of the traditional family, you could make an argument for that. If we were concerned about marriage, why were we not concerned about marriage when marriage was under pressure over the last decades because of changing roles, because of changing decisions, because of the laws in the States that were making it easier for people--husbands, wives, mothers, and fathers--to get divorced?

    We searched, and I don't see anyone in the history of the Senate or the House who put forward an amendment to try to stop the increasing number of divorces in order to stem the problem and the difficulties that clearly have been visited upon adults certainly but principally children because of the ease of divorce in this society over the last decade. We didn't do that.

    We could stand on this floor for hours talking about the importance of marriage, the significance of the role of marriage in not only bringing children into the world but enabling them to be successful citizens in the world. How many of us have struggled for years to deal with the consequences of illegitimacy, of out-of-wedlock births, of divorce, of the kinds of anomie and disassociation that too many children experienced because of that.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 19, 2016 4:43 AM GMT continued
    I think that if we were really concerned about marriage and that we believed it had a role in the Federal Constitution, we have been missing in action. We should have been in this Chamber trying to amend our Constitution to take away at the very first blush the idea of no-fault divorce, try to get in there and tell the States what they should and should not do with respect to marriage and divorce, maybe try to write an amendment to the Constitution about custody matters. Maybe we should have
    it be a presumption in our Federal marriage law that joint custody is the rule. Maybe we ought to just substitute ourselves for States, for judges, for individuals who are making these decisions every single day throughout our Nation.

    We did not do that, did we? Can any of us stand here and feel good about all of the social consequences, the economic consequences? We know divorce leads to a lowered standard of living for women and children. Then, of course, if we were to deal with some of the consequences of out-of-wedlock births, the lack of marriage, we could have addressed that in a constitutional amendment. Perhaps we should have amended the Constitution to mandate marriage.

    Is it really marriage we are protecting? I believe marriage should be protected. I believe marriage is essential, but I do not, for the life of me, understand how amending the Constitution of the United States with respect to same-gender marriages really gets at the root of the problem of marriage in America. It is like my late father used to say: It is like closing the barn door after the horse has left.

    We hear all of these speeches and see these charts about the impact on marriage. We are living in a society where people have engaged in divorce at a rapid, accelerated rate. We all know it is something that has led to the consequences with respect to the economy, to society, to psychology, and emotion that so often mark a young child's path to adulthood.

    So what are we doing here? Some say that even though marriage has been under pressure--which, indeed, it has--and has suffered because of changing attitudes toward marriage now for quite some years, even though most States are moving as rapidly as possible to prohibit same-gender marriages, we have to step in with a Federal constitutional amendment.

    The States, which have always defined and enforced the laws of marriage, are taking action. Thirty-eight States--maybe it is up to 40 now--already have laws banning same-sex marriage. Voters in at least eight States are considering amendments to their constitutions reserving marriage to unions between a man and a woman. But the sponsors argue that we have to act with a Federal constitutional amendment because the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution will eventually force States, if
    there are any left, that do not wish to recognize same-sex marriages to do so.

    That is not the way I read the case law. With all due respect, the way I read the case law is that the full faith and credit clause has never been interpreted to mean that every State must recognize every marriage performed in every other State. We had States that allowed young people to marry when they were 14, and then States that allowed young people to marry when they were 16 or 18. The full faith and credit clause did not require that any other State recognize

    the validity of a marriage of a person below the age of marital consent according to their own laws.

    Every State reserves the right to refuse to recognize a marriage performed in another State if that marriage would violate the State's public policy. Indeed, the Supreme Court has long held that no State can be forced to recognize any marriage. That is what the case law has held. But just to make sure there were no loopholes in that case law, the Congress passed and the President signed the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA.

    The Defense of Marriage Act has not even been challenged at the Federal level, and because the Supreme Court has historically held that States do not have to recognize laws of other States that offend their public policy, it is assumed that any challenge would be futile.

    So what is it we are really focused on and concerned about here?

    If we look at what has happened in the last several months--and there are others in this body who are more able to discuss this than I because it affects the laws of their States--as Senator Kennedy said, in Massachusetts, a court decision will be challenged by a referendum. In California, San Francisco's action permitting the licensing of same-sex marriages was stopped by the California State courts. The DOMA law that was enacted already protects States from having to recognize same-sex
    marriage licenses issued in other States.

    So I worry that, despite what I do believe is the sincere concern on the part of many of the advocates of this amendment, they have rushed to judgment without adequate consideration of the laws, the case laws, the actions of the States, and that their very earnest, impassioned arguments about marriage have certainly overlooked the problems that marriage has encountered in its present traditional state within the last several decades in our country.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 19, 2016 5:23 AM GMT
    Well, working in the gummint during the Clinton years, I can tell you the main thing that Came Down From On High was strict racial quotas for the management positions. Even though we weren't legally supposed to use racial quotas. They couldn't care less about actual qualifications.

    I presume that this time around there will be strict quotas for LGBT in all government positions under executive control?

    Oh, and the other thing was the Clintons were total whores for Hollywood parties. They'd make science policy based on dumb shit that actors told them. Like when they let Alec Baldwin and Kim Basinger override Brookhaven scientists.

    So... Maybe some drag queens in charge of the nukes this time? Or Neal Patrick Harris... He's certainly qualified as Dr. Horrible!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 19, 2016 5:51 AM GMT
    The Clinton’s Skeleton Filled Closet