just another "me too, me too" diversionary effort from the rodent .... just like the crazies in the "bushit" administration.

Bushit & his right-wing supporters stepped up their
call for passing the Marriage
Protection Amendment yesterday, declaring that marriage is "under
attack" by "activist
judges." The federal amendment would make history by being the first to write
discrimination into the U.S. Constitution by banning gay marriage. The
federal marriage amendment (FMA) will "remove
the issue from the democratic process (PDF) by preventing states from
allowing same-sex marriage if they choose." The constitutional amendment has a
slim to none chance of passing — even conservatives are calling
it nothing more than a political ploy. But the right wing continues to push
this issue as though it were the most pressing issue facing America today
(certainly not the war, gas prices or immigration).

‘The Senate on Wednesday rejected a constitutional
amendment to ban gay marriage, dealing an embarrassing defeat to President Bush
and Republicans who hoped to use the measure to energize conservative voters on
Election Day. 

Supporters knew they wouldn't
achieve the two-thirds vote needed to approve a constitutional amendment, but
they had predicted a gain in votes over the last time the issue came up, in
2004. Instead, they lost one vote for the amendment in a procedural test tally. 

Wednesday's 49-48 vote fell 11
short of the 60 required to send the matter for an up-or-down tally. The 2004
vote was 50-48. 

Supporters lost two key
"yes" votes - one from Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., who has changed his
mind since 2004, and another from Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., who did not vote
this time because he was traveling with Bush. 

Gregg said that in 2004, he
believed the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage
in that state would undermine the prerogatives of other states, like his, to
prohibit such unions. 

"Fortunately, such legal
pandemonium has not ensued," Gregg said in a statement. "The past two
years have shown that federalism, not more federal laws, is a viable and
preferable approach."’ 

Senate Rejects
Amendment On Gay Marriage

From the New York Times

N.Y. Court Upholds Gay Marriage Ban

By ANEMONA HARTOCOLLIS
Published: July 6, 2006
New York's highest court today turned back a broad attempt by gay and lesbian couples across the state to win the right to marry and raise children under New York State's marriage law, saying that denying marriage to same-sex couples does not violate the state constitution.

In a 4-2 decision, the Court of Appeals found that the state's definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, enacted more than a century ago, could have a rational basis, and that it was up to the State Legislature, not the courts, to decide whether it should be changed.

The majority decision, written by Judge Robert S. Smith, who was appointed by Gov. George Pataki, found that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples could be based on rational social goals, primarily the protection and welfare of children.

"Plaintiffs have not persuaded us that this long-accepted restriction is a wholly irrational one, based solely on ignorance and prejudice against homosexuals," Judge Smith wrote in his 22-page opinion. For example, he wrote, it could be argued that children benefit from being raised by two natural parents, a mother and a father, rather than by gay or lesbian couples.

Chief Judge Judith Kaye wrote a dissenting opinion and was joined by Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, both appointed by Gov. Mario Cuomo, a Democrat. Judge Kaye warned that future generations would look back at yesterday's decision as "an unfortunate misstep," and would consider the barring of gay marriage as an injustice akin to the laws that once barred interracial marriage, an analogy the majority on the court rejected.

Gay and lesbian groups viewed the decision as a major setback, even though the court's ruling was not altogether unexpected.

"Today is a sad day for all New Yorkers who believe in the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under law," said Roberta A. Kaplan, a lawyer for the plaintiffs in Samuels v. Department of Health, one of four cases consolidated in the same ruling. "Chief Judge Kaye's dissent got it exactly right in saying that future generations will come to see today's decision as a terrible mistake."