We lost!

[livinginphotographs]

Marriage Protection Act passed 233 to 194.


http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Press_Room&CONTENTID=21498&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm

Can someone give me some quick reassurance that this bill will be struck down by the SCOTUS the minute it's challenged? This is really fucking discouraging...

[Bluebear]

1. Did the Senate pass this?

Does it not have to go to both houses?

[bhunt70]

2. No the senate hasn't done anything on it.

If Im not mistaken, I think it is expected to be an uphill battle for it to pass the senate.

[Melinda]

3. It still has to pass the Senate - let the games begin.

:)

[NWHarkness]

4. It doesn't stand a chance

Even if it were to make it through the Senate, which is doubtful.

The courts won't care about the specifics of the issue, they will reject this attempt to usurp their authority.

[hlthe2b]

7. They won't take it up and it will die this session. All for show, folks..

[mike1963]

5. It has to be deliberated in the Senate and the word is they aren't ready

to even consider it for now. It's a 'cinch bill' I'm pretty sure.

[livinginphotographs]

6. I called my reps office today about it

Eric Cantor (R-VA of course), and he voted for it of course. This is just really disgusting.

I'm only reassured by the fact that the Supreme Court will never decide to basically neuter themselves by upholding this law.

I've always hesitated to join the HRC because of the money issue, but I think this may be the time...

[mhollis]

8. Not quite

This is another right-wing attempt to try to embarrass Kerry and Edwards by forcing the homosexual marriage issue into the Senate. I think the Senate's response will be about the same as their response to a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.

The argument by the Democrats should be, "It's unconstitutional on its face and we're not going to be a party to a congressional assault on the powers of the Judiciary."

This is baiting, pure and simple and should be seen as such.

[livinginphotographs]

9. Exactly.

With some people, arguing the gay rights position is pointless.

But any decent Republican (at least the old-school kind) would respect the fact that castrating the Supreme Court is a gross violation of what the founding fathers intended. How the hell should Congress be able to decide what cases a court can and cannot hear.

That's what I argued with Cantor's office today. But he voted for it anyway. The fucking prick...

And by the way, welcome to DU (even though I haven't been here that long myself).

[CaTeacher]

12. Welcome to DU!!!

[mhollis]

14. Thanks for the welcome...

I have http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2040709&mesg_id=2040901">previously introduced myself, though that was in a different thread. I gather threads tend to expire really quickly here.

[scottxyz]

10. This bill is the HIV of bills

Like HIV, which is hard to develop immunity against because it specifically attacks the immune system, this bill attacks the system of checks and balances. I don't think we've ever seen an attempt to create a law like this before - a law which tries to say that certain laws can't be reviewed by the courts.

This bill is no ordinary bill. It attempts to destroy the system of checks and balances. This bill says that laws about gay marriage cannot be reviewed by the courts.

Of course, such a bill is unconstitutional on its face. You can't pass a law in America that says certain laws can't be reviewed by courts.

It's a very interesting self-referential law they're trying to pass here. A law that says that this particular law cannot be reviewed by a court. This is why it reminds me of HIV - a virus that infect the immune system - so the immune system can't fight back against it. This law attempts to infect our system of checks and balances - so there's no way of fighting back against it.

[Dookus]

17. actually

the text of the constitution implies that congress CAN do such a thing.

It's never been decided by the courts, though.

[gauguin57]

11. Now WHAT IN THE HELL?

We just had the 9/11 commission report, filled with recommendations. Dennis Hastert said he doubts anything will really be done on it in Congress this year. THIS YEAR? IT's ONLY JULY! Do you guys plan to be on vacation as much as George W. Bush was in his first year in office or something?

And you're WASTING TIME ON THIS BIGOTED PIECE OF CRAP?

That's it. You guys are FIRED! We need to vote in a Democratic PResident, a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate. This is absolute bulls***!!!!

[fortyfeetunder]

13. Wonder what the Log Cabin boys and girls are saying?

They gonna stand behind Bush now?

[guitar man]

15. If they are like most repugs I know

they won't let something as trivial as civil rights get in the way of their money :eyes:

[livinginphotographs]

16. :snort: Probably.

Log cabin republicans are like Jews for Nazis. The gay rights issue is 95% of the reason why I stopped supporting the Republican party, despite being raised a republican.

[Hippo_Tron]

19. They have to adjourn in early October to run for re-election

And only come back into session after that if they are called into special session by the president (something I can see chimp doing on his way out).

[Bush was AWOL]

18. I think this hurts Bush

This is one of the only complaints my Republican friends have about Bush.

[CaTeacher]

22. we need to be strongly pro-Gay Rights

and not back down from ANYTHING. This is crucially important. If we desert the gay community, we are nothing--and we do not deserve the WH.

(don't give me BS about how we have to desert our people to "win" a win is not worth it if you have to sell out the soul of your core beliefs.)

[Bush was AWOL]

23. I am strongly opposed to what Bush and Congress

are trying to do.

[drhilarius]

20. Amazing.

9/11 commission report comes out today and it states there have been massive system wide failures in the intelligence community. What does congress do? Keep gays from getting married. Way to go.

[stickdog]

21. It's unconstitional and dead in the Senate. (nt)

[Zen Democrat]

Senate voted to end debate and table last week. It's dead.

The House vote was just a face-saving vote for the Pukes to take to the drones in the shallow end of the gene pool.

[Zen Democrat]

24. Dupe

[Dookus]

25. No

two different issues. The senate ended debate on a constitutional amendment. The House today passed a BILL, attempting to invoke Article III, Section II, Clause 2 of the constitution, which says:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.


That clause has never been ruled on by the courts. It's a hail-mary pass on the part of the Republicans, but it's NOT "clearly" unconstutional because the courts have never ruled on it.