Gay Marriage Ban to Move to Full Senate

Election year pandering to the red-meat righteous rapture base continued apace this morning as the Senate Judiciary Committee okayed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

At least one Democrat didn't take it lying down, and sparks flew, according to AP:

Feingold, Specter clash over gay marriage

WASHINGTON --A Senate committee approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage Thursday, after a shouting match that ended when one Democrat strode out and the Republican chairman bid him "good riddance."

"I don't need to be lectured by you. You are no more a protector of the Constitution than am I," Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., shouted after Sen. Russ Feingold declared his opposition to the amendment, his affinity for the Constitution and his intention to leave the meeting.

"If you want to leave, good riddance," Specter finished.

"I've enjoyed your lecture, too, Mr. Chairman," replied Feingold, D-Wis., who is considering a run for president in 2008. "See ya."

The article notes the proposed amendment will now move to the full Senate, "where it stands little chance of passing."

Update: To add insult to injury, Page One is reporting that the hearing was moved behind closed doors:

The Senate Judiciary Committee moved its meeting today -- including the "mark-up" of a US Constitutional Amendment to restrict marriage equality -- from a public room in a Senate office building to the restricted access President's Room, off the floor of the Senate chamber, inside the US Capitol. According to a statement issued by the Human Rights Campaign, the room "is not open to the public and does not even have enough chairs for every Senator on the committee to sit."

(Thanks to John Byrne for the tip.)

•  I am for a constitutional amendment

  to ban gay marriage.

  Maybe then we can talk about some real issues.

  by ConservativeDemocrat on Thu May 18, 2006 at 08:45:29 AM PDT

  •  Maybe we could just talk about real issues before

    writing discrimination into the constitution?

    by js noble on Thu May 18, 2006 at 08:46:46 AM PDT

    •  not until far right wing leadership

      is shown out the door and over to, say, the Middle East or some other repressive area, where it belongs

      by Ivan Carter on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:02:20 AM PDT

    •  Exactly, and Russ Feingold ROCKS!!

      I would love to see some video footage of that hearing, or at least a transcript.  Russ telling off the slimy Specter is great, Specter is one of the biggest con artists in the Senate.  He pretends to be "moderate" to get elected in Pennsylvania, then backs every Bushco slime nomination and constitution shredding while only worried about holding onto that cherished chairmanship.

      Get lost Specter, and don't talk down to the absolute best US Senator today, Russ Feingold.

      by MD patriot on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:03:34 AM PDT

      •  yes, but here again is an opportunity

        to make the case

        as this was

        by Ivan Carter on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:06:45 AM PDT

        •  Excellent link: 'Repubs absurd spin'

          Hopefully America will not be confused by the Republican's absurd spin on this issue, and will recognize that Senator Feingold is in fact trying to preserve America's freedoms, while the president once again cowers cowardly under his old and worn excuse of national defense."

          (link in the comment above)

          The Repubs have gotten by with a steady diet of absurd spin for the six years of King George's reign, it is far past time for the Dems to stand up and truly oppose the Unitary Dictator- TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY!

          by MD patriot on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:34:13 AM PDT

      •  You are grossly missinformed

        Specter is totally opposed to the Amendment, he just feels it should be debated.

        I like Feingold, but he seems to be out of line on this one.  There was no need for a tantrum here.

        by homey on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:10:06 AM PDT

        •  just feels it should be debated. (!!!??!!!)

          right - you mean just like habeas corpus, the bill of rights, and the separation of powers?

          by selise on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:19:11 AM PDT

          •  I see no harm in debate

            Debating is good.  It gets it out in the open.  If our cause is just, it's an opportunity to show everyone.  

            By hiding the issue we aren't furthering gay rights.

            by homey on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:32:02 AM PDT

            •  debating is good...

              but, not when it's limited to what the crazies want to debate.

              by selise on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:33:35 AM PDT

              •  i would prefer a debate

                on some REAL issues that affect all Americans, like national health care.  gay marriage is a non-issue.  

                by betsyross on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:52:48 AM PDT

                •  I want a debate too!!

                  I want my senator to debate on my right to wear my underwear on my head.  Backwards.  To work.

                  Sure it may seem frivolous, unnecessary and even slightly insulting to what our country is all about....but damnit we'll never know until we have a debate!

                  by guyute16 on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:01:22 AM PDT

                  •  Debate three!!!

                    Then, of course, they'll have to debate what kind of underwear you can wear on your head - boxers or briefs? Could a man wear women's underwear on his head, or vice versa? Hmmm.... might have to have a Gay Underwear amendment to deal with this as well.

                    by FresnoKossack on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:05:53 AM PDT

                    •  Damnit, we just wont' know!

                      Until we have a debate!  

                      Oh you know what, let's just pass a constitutional amendment allowing everybody to wear underwear on their heads to work.  That way we can start discussing more important things.....

                      by guyute16 on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:16:17 AM PDT

                •  You're a straigt person, right?

                  by prior30 on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:34:13 AM PDT

                •  a non issue unless

                  ... sure it's a non issue unless you are gay and want to marry, or have gay friends who want to marry, have children who know they are or might some day discover that they are gay and want to marry (surprise! it happens), or live in a community with other people who are gay might want to marry (and you do live in that community... no matter where you live...)

                  Of course health care is a big issue, and in budget terms a much bigger issue.  

                  But is there any issue bigger in moral terms than human equality?  

                  by Miles on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:05:00 AM PDT

                  •  i didn't mean to imply

                    that gay marriage wasn't important to people of the same sex who want to marry.  i support it...  as much as i support a woman's right to choose abortion or not.  personal decisions that the government should not be trying to regulate.  we shouldn't have or need laws on the books telling people who they should or shouldn't be able to marry.  maybe i should have written "gay marriage should be a non-issue" (although i don't know if that comes across differently.  whatever.  didn't mean to offend gays)  

                    p.s. human equality would apply to the healthcare issue as well.    

                    by betsyross on Thu May 18, 2006 at 12:10:28 PM PDT

            •  Debating such a ridiculous issue

              only gives it legitimacy.

              by kkshedevil on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:59:09 AM PDT

              •  We don't need another debate

                Is there anyone who is going to vote who doesn't already know what the issue is?

                It's not going to pass.  They don't have the votes.

                This is nothing more than a desperate attempt by the Republicans to divert attention from the crappy economy, the problems in Iraq, the mess they made of Medicare-D, and a host of other things.  

                If I am right, this is going to blow up in their faces.  I don't believe the religious right is going to be placated by another round of empty gestures by the Republicans.

                As for people who want a debate...how would you like it if your equality under the Constitution had to be "debated".  It's insulting.

                Gay people are citizens too.

                by Houndentenor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:28:20 AM PDT

            •  then why

              even have committees?

              by paprog on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:43:01 AM PDT

            •  That's the problem

              The debate wasn't open to the public here. Specter could have had a public debate on both the senate floor and in the judiciary committee, but he instead moved the hearing to a room reserved for only senators and their staff.

              by schwompa on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:51:09 AM PDT

            •  Fodder

              The only reason they passed this was to be able to run ads in November saying the Dems love gays.  That will remind their bigoted base to come out and support them.  Their desperate polling numbers have led them to this.  They know it stands no chance of passing in the full Senate, where even Specter himself has stated he is against it.  It's simply to provide fodder for the Rethuglican election ads this Fall.  Specter can go rot and Feingold rocks!

              by revliver on Thu May 18, 2006 at 12:10:03 PM PDT

            •  Sorry, but there is no debate

              There is no debate because there aren't two rational, principled sides.

              There's the side that supports equal civil rights and equal treatment under the law for all people, and the side that is flat out wrong due to ignorant bigotry.  Period.

              Debate is good when it serves good purposes.  But civil rights aren't supposed to be debated.  Civil rights shouldn't be subject to the tyranny of the majority.  That's what the Bill of Rights is all about:  these things are not open for debate.  

              This "debate" is nothing more than a political ploy that preys on ignorance and intolerance to whip up fear-mongering hatred and vitriol in an attempt to motivate the idiots out there stupid enough to still be supporting this Administration to get to polls.  It's crass, it's cynical, it's divisive, and it's unnecessary.

              by Spryboy on Thu May 18, 2006 at 04:15:30 PM PDT

        •  I disagree

          ...with your catagorization of Feingold's behavior as a "tantrum". It seems to me that he spoke most politely, and when faced with an extremely unpalatable situation, he did the adult thing and left the room. Specter was the one shouting "Good Riddance".

          by poichick on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:23:16 AM PDT

          •  maybe

            but, I took "shouting match" to mean both were involved.

            And storming out of the committee?  Give me a break.  If he cares about the issue, he will stay and do his part.  He's a Senator, he should be able to take a heated debate without storming out.

            by homey on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:31:14 AM PDT

            •  Specter is Bushite Slime

              Specter is a Bush-loving slime, only slightly better than the Cat-Killer Frist.  He only cares about his power, and he'll continue to aid the evil Bush so that he can be "Mr. Chairman".

              Sure would be nice to replace him with Russ Feingold after the 2006 elections.

              by MD patriot on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:37:52 AM PDT

            •  I suspect

              I suspect that he did not wish to justify the issue with earnest debate, since it's not an issue of intellect but of fear and loathing of a really generally wonderful class of people.

              I think he was entitled to walk out, and make a bigger point than if he'd simply voted no or abstained.  The amendment is ludicrous -- the constitution is a set of guidelines and limitations on government, and all of our amendments tighten that up by defining more clearly what peoples rights are, by defining what government CANNOT do.  This amendment, like many others which have been since struck down as bad ideas, would limit what the PEOPLE can do, which is not in the spirit of the document.

              by Stymnus on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:38:38 AM PDT

            •  You'll notice what the AP didn't report:

              It didn't report what Feingold said in his "lecture" to Specter. The likely reason is that Feingold's remarks would have been persuasive.

              Another reminder that the news media do not ever want to report things (like what Stephen Colbert said) that are effective indictments of Republicans.

              As for Specter, he served on the Warren Commission and is the author of the single-bullet theory, which was a crucial element in the cover up of the right-wing coup that killed an elected president. He on that day lost forever any right to ever claim he is in any way a defender of the Constitution. May he burn in hell.

              by expatjourno on Thu May 18, 2006 at 12:04:14 PM PDT

              •  He's just running for Pres!

                They did manage to insinuate it was all a big stunt since he's "considering" a 2008 presidential run.

                These people never change

                by guyute16 on Thu May 18, 2006 at 12:49:10 PM PDT

        •  To what purpose?

          So Rethugs can prove once again that they are the guardians of moral values? Sheesh what else could be worthy of debate in its stead? Illegal wiretapping, the War in Iraq, the outing of an undercover CIA agent, why Porter Goss resigned...?

          Oh and let's not forget Specter's prominent role in promoting "the magic bullet" theory in JFK's assassination. He wasn't too eager then to debate the facts. The man is no moderate!

          by vcmvo2 on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:34:21 AM PDT

          •  Debate is it's own purpose

            Debate sheds light on issues.  Being close-minded solves nothing.

            by homey on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:36:58 AM PDT

            •  True, but

              By letting this through Specter is allowing a debate on this that by its very nature can lead to a pro-discrimination vote as it is a debate on voting on this in the actual senate. Despite that he and you and I know that we could have an enlightening debate on this subject in the media or somewhere else where this could not get furthered in its quest to become discriminatory law.

              We shouldn't risk throwing away people's rights forever just for the sake of having every possible theoretical enlightening debate in the senate.

              by DemDachshund on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:43:16 AM PDT

            •  So...

              The guy wanting to ban gay marriage is not the one being closed minded?  Oh, wait, he only wants to encourage a serious debate about writing idiotic, closed-minded bullshit into America's greatest document.  

              But it's the people opposed to such that are being closed-minded.  Not the bigots harping on an obvious soon-to-be-failed initiative in order to spike up hatred in the voting populace to further their own agenda.

              Whether this was called for or not, I am for anyone & anything that will shake up shit in DC, cuz 99% of the bastards in that town need a wake up call.  Go Russ.

              by JoeOhioan on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:48:51 AM PDT

              •  anyone opposed to debate

                on any topic is being close minded.

                by homey on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:54:56 AM PDT

                •  Really? And thats bad?

                  So why not have the Senate spend a couple weeks debating the merits of the various American Idol finalists?  How about the House debating the relevance of Astrology on American foreign policy?  Lets have the Senate Intelligence Committee debate the lessons the American Government can learn from the hit TV show 24.  We need national debates about grape jelly vs apricot jelly.  Or even better, jelly vs jam.

                  Seriously, if avoiding idiotic debates like these is close minded, then so be it.  Our national leaders do not need to waste time, and tax payer dollars, debating stupid shit.  And this constitutinal amendment is stupid shit.  Any debate on this thing is wasted time & money.

                  by JoeOhioan on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:00:33 AM PDT

                  •  Sure it's bad

                    it's a devisive issue that needs to be resolved.  Would you say that gays have everything they want right now?  

                    No.  And while it's an issue, it should be open for debate.

                    by homey on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:08:49 AM PDT

                    •  Then they should be debating

                      anchoring gay rights INTO the Constitution, not writing gay rights OUT of the Constitution.

                      Until they get the terms of the debate right, it's pointless humoring their posturing and bigotry.

                      by corvo on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:12:02 AM PDT

                      •  for the most part,

                        they don't have that right now.

                        so it is a debate about a right that is currently not widespread.

                        regardless, it's a contentious issue and should be debated.

                        by homey on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:21:25 AM PDT

                        •  But not on those terms. n/t

                          by corvo on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:23:17 AM PDT

                        •  Intent Matters

                          The proposed Constitutional amendment, and necessarily gay marriage, have been "debated" by the Senate in prior Republican-controlled Congresses during the Bush administration.  It has been voted down on those prior occasions after contentious, anguished, and heartfelt moments on the Senate floor.  There are no new nuances, insights, or points to inform these prior and now instant debates.  Yet here we are.  Again.  

                          Intent matters.  No serious argument can be made that Congress hasn't fully and recently aired this issue.  Specter's clandestine "hearing" on this "issue" to insure full floor "debate" is obviously the sine qua non procedural step for another vicious attack on disempowered "outsiders" or "thems," designed solely for political advantage by the right in the upcoming Congressional elections.  That's clear.  Hence the utter lack of legitimacy of Specter's position.  Good riddance?  Please.

                          As for the merits, among many other reasons, the equal protection clause of the Constitution suggests that legal benefits of civil marriage shouldn't be withheld from American citizens based on same-sex affinity.  There is no rational basis for doing so.  The Supreme Court has already ruled in Romer that antipathy towards gays is not a rational basis for withholding Constitutional rights.  

                          Churches, of course, may opt or refuse to sanctify that legal civil benefit in religious ceremonies at their discretion.  That's what freedom of religion is for.  But the freedom to deny religious ceremonies doesn't trump equal right to civil legal benefits in this case.  

                          So.  Good on Feingold for walking out on this farce.  Specter's not morally fit to occupy either the Judiciary Committee Chair or the same room as Feingold.  (See Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings.)  

                          by DC Scott on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:52:15 AM PDT

                          •  Best comment of the day!

                            Wish I could give you a 100.

                            by Brooke In Seattle on Thu May 18, 2006 at 01:30:12 PM PDT

                          •  Are you saying...

                            ... that, under current law, gay people have a right, guaranteed by the US Constitution, to enter into civil marriages in all 50 states?

                            I'd love to be surprised but I wouldn't expect any SCOTUS in the last 230 years would rule that it's so.

                            Would you run that case up to the SCOTUS now?

                            by gsbadj on Thu May 18, 2006 at 01:47:19 PM PDT

                            •  Well, that's up to the Supreme Court.

                              I'm saying that there is a strong and very intellectually honest argument supporting that Constitutional holding, yes.  230 years of inaction notwithstanding.  Unfortunately, I sincerely doubt that a majority of the Supreme Court, as currently packed, would so hold.  But Kennedy's a wild card . . . I would never have predicted that he would write the majority opinion in Lawrence (Texas sodomy case) that struck down sodomy statute on the most expansive grounds possible, that wonderful, magnificent, glorious right to privacy in your own bedroom.  Which makes getting a Democrat in the White House for the next couple of Supreme Court appointments imperative.  I would be extremely reluctant to take a case to the Supreme Court right now, absent some great facts.  

                              But I keep coming back to the intellectual honesty that is so distressingly absent in any discussion of gay civil rights that goes on in this country from a majority (but not all) of the right. The Supreme Court's opinion in Lawrence is well reasoned.  Thoughtful.  Judicious.  Consistent with precedent, except for that hateful Bowers decision that got overturned.  Then compare the majority opinion to Justice Scalia's vicious dissent, where he ran the specter of "gay marriage" up the flagpole that actually launched this inquisition.  But, then, intellectual honesty and judicial temperament are certainly not one of Scalia's long suits.  

                              And I can't help but laugh that Massachusetts, which recognizes marriage (not civil unions) between same sex couples, has one of if not the lowest divorce rates in the country.  And that the "liberal" blue states, which tend to be more reasonable in their treatment of gay Americans, have lower divorce rates than the God-fearing red heartland and Deep South, from which I hale.  Family values indeed.  

                              One other fact:  recent surveys indicate that the younger generation (18-25 or so, referred to as "Millennials"), who didn't cut their teeth on the vicious homophobia that their elders grew up with, think gay marriage is fine.  I believe one comment was "why shouldn't gays be as miserable as everyone else," but that's beside the point.  Hopefully, the bigots of this generation will not screw that generation over any more than they already have with the current Administration policies.  

                              Which, of course, would include amending the Constitution to oppress a minority.  What a disgrace.  But, then, no surprise there.  

                              by DC Scott on Thu May 18, 2006 at 02:27:04 PM PDT

                        •  It's not about having the debate, you moron.

                          It's about forcing Democratic senators and the democratic Party in general to go on record by holding  a vote that can be held against them.

                          by expatjourno on Thu May 18, 2006 at 12:07:44 PM PDT

                          •  moron?

                            clearly you are too upset to engage in a rational debate.

                            feel free to storm out and join Feingold in the hall, leaving the debate for people who can handle it.

                            by homey on Thu May 18, 2006 at 12:35:20 PM PDT

                            •  Oh don't mind him...

                              ...he's probably just angry that his right to exist gets debated by our do nothing senate and defended by morons like you.

                              Ooops...did I say moron.

                              Guess I'm hot headed too.  Or maybe we should have a debate about that?

                              by guyute16 on Thu May 18, 2006 at 12:52:39 PM PDT

                              •  right to exist?

                                That's a little steep.  Nobody's discussing anyone's right to exist.

                                And sure, we can debate whatever you like.

                                I'll start.  I think it displays a weakness of an argument and a lack of intelligence to resort to petty name-calling in a debate.

                                What do you think?

                                by homey on Thu May 18, 2006 at 12:55:04 PM PDT

                                •  I think you're a moron...

                                  ...like most trolls, which also makes you an asshole, like all trolls. All you keep saying is that there should be a debate, in the senate and one, which i'm sure is sheer coincidence, that forces every Democratic Senator into making a politically difficult vote while letting Rethuglican senators do the kind of gay-baiting that is popular among the bigots who form their base.

                                  Oh, clever, clever, clever you, to talk about how important this "debate" is and then refuse to actuallky debate it. Hardy har har. So amusing. Well, piss off, wanker.

                                  by expatjourno on Thu May 18, 2006 at 01:27:01 PM PDT

                                  •  Nobody wishes to debate it

                                    I'd be happy to, though I would appreciate a little intelligence behind it.

                                    The only thing people want to debate here is whether or not we should debate it.  Which is getting old, to be honest.

                                    I clearly stated my views on gay marriage in another portion of the thread, and most people seemed to be receptive.  There was a short debate, but not much.

                                    Many seem to feel that it is an opportunity to simply hurt Democrats.  Well, I think it's the opposite.  It's an opportunity for Democrats to lead the discussion and show the American People that gay marriage should be legal.

                                    by homey on Thu May 18, 2006 at 01:34:23 PM PDT

                                •  counterpoint

                                  I think name calling is justified when you're trying to get through the thick skull of someone who has latched onto an idiotic talking point and won't let go.

                                  I've been with my partner for five years now.  Suddenly Arlen Specter wants to hold us up as an example of all that is wrong with this country in the US Senate.

                                  In my mind, there is no debate and no appropriate reaction other than the one that Feingold had.  

                                  The Senate could theoretically debate that the earth is flat (and wait 25 more years, if the fundies have their way we'll get there).  That doesn't make them wise and it sure as hell doesn't mean they're spending their time wisely

                                  by guyute16 on Thu May 18, 2006 at 01:27:56 PM PDT

                                  •  First of all,

                                    Specter does not want to hold you up as an example of all that is wrong with this country.  He's one of the few republicans that agrees with you on this issue.

                                    Second of all, as a homosexual I would think that you would want as much press on the discrimination you face as possible.  I fail to see any benefit in sweeping your problems under the rug.

                                    by homey on Thu May 18, 2006 at 01:36:07 PM PDT

                                    •  Half baked legislation like this...

                                      ...IS the problem.  Writ large, right there in the senate that I foolishly pay taxes to help fund.

                                      Specter wants it both ways.  He wants to benefit the party politically by allowing this half baked waste of time to hit the senate floor, AND he wants to come off as moderate for the voters back in PA by opposing.

                                      This is not to be applauded in my opinion and if you ask me the only side he's on is his own.

                                      by guyute16 on Thu May 18, 2006 at 05:33:57 PM PDT

                    •  Nice switch

                      Nowhere did I say that we shouldn't be talking about homosexual rights.  I'm saying we shouldn't be talking about constitutional amendments banning civil liberties.  Two completely different things.  This "debate" will do absolutely nothing to further homosexual rights in this country.  It will only increase the level of animosity between the opposing groups.

                      The constitution needs to be completely removed from this discussion.  As long as the Republicans force the amendment onto the table, there is no "debate".  It is widely known that it has absolutely no chance in passing.  It's a red herring, used for the purpose of Republican campaigning.  Continuing the "debate" accordingly affords the Republicans free campaign press.

                      So basically: There is no debate here!  It's rhetoric from the Republican side.  To turn this into a debate, logical solutions must be proposed.  Until that happens, we need more reactions like Russ.

                      by JoeOhioan on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:17:12 AM PDT

                      •  sure there is

                        many Americans want the ban - so take the opportunity to discuss why it's a bad idea.

                        by homey on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:20:43 AM PDT

                        •  No it isn't...

                          Many Germans supported the Nuremburg laws and the internment of gays, Jews and Poles and other undesirables into concentration camps.  The "debate" beforehand was not enlightening - why do you think a debate about enshrining bigotry into the U.S. Constitution is a "good thing?"

                          by Viceroy on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:51:51 AM PDT

                          •  the concentration camps were not openly debated.

                            by homey on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:09:58 AM PDT

                            •  Of course they weren't--

                              nothing in Nazi Germany was openly debated--but that doesn't mean that a majority didn't support things like the Nuremberg Laws, Hitler's conquests (as long as he was winning), etc.

                              by corvo on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:14:28 AM PDT

                              •  So?

                                Debate on the topic would have at least brought the issues into the open for all to see.  I think things would have turned out differently if the German people knew full well what was going on.

                                by homey on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:22:07 AM PDT

                                •  The captured transcript

                                  of the Wannsee conference is available for all to see.  Please explain in detail how the debate there benefitted gays, Jews and other Third Reich enemies.

                                  by Viceroy on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:38:58 AM PDT

                            •  Yes they were...

                              The Nuremburg laws were enacted through the Reichstag, and subjected to whatever form of "debate" that body allowed.  The initial "work camps" were indeed debated there.  The specific "death camps" were also debated rather furiously at the Wannsee conference, with representatives of all the relevant governmental departments.

                              So you're rather clearly wrong.  Now, rather than denying fact, please address the original question.

                              by Viceroy on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:36:32 AM PDT

                              •  What? No they weren't

                                They were enacted by the Economics Minister in 1935.  The Reichstag sceeded it's power to the Nazi Party in 1933.

                                by homey on Thu May 18, 2006 at 01:11:51 PM PDT

                        •  American's want to ban a lot of things...

                          This is the same mentality that is debating Evolutionary theory, that feels life begins before conception (RU-486 ban) and the same mentality humans suffered from in the past when they wanted to ban mixed race marriage, mixed income marriages or any other primitive bigotry they try to justify with the idea of "values". Remember when Oregon tried to ban homosexuals from the state - twice?

                          Debating this is like debating whether torture is good or bad... Oh wait, we are debating that.

                          Well, let's just keep pretending these "debates" are not just politicians pandering to the sad state of ignorance in this country and once again support leaders on route to yet another ugly time in America's quest to acheive true civil rights for everyone.

                          by stupidgit on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:54:57 AM PDT

                          •  all issues should be discussed

                            and resolved.

                            by homey on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:10:25 AM PDT

                            •  You really think that?

                              You really think a child is human before conception? You really think torture on another human being is acceptable? You really think science should be discredited because a certain religion disagrees with it?

                              Should we also have a serious debate on mixed race marriage like a good number of Americans want? (I've actually had this debate with people).

                              I don't think these debates are needed and the only purpose they serve is to lend credibility to the people who believe that other humans are worth less than themselves. I will debate anyone on a personal level about these subjects but our elected officials should stick to matters of national concern - not personal bigotry.

                              by stupidgit on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:16:05 AM PDT

                              •  No, but many do

                                why would I close my ears and say "LA LA LA LA LA, I can't hear you" if they want to discuss it?

                                Why are my views more important than theirs?

                                by homey on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:17:51 AM PDT

                                •  Then talk about it

                                  yourself.  But precious limited time in Senate sessions should not be wasted on what's essentially just posturing for bigots.

                                  by corvo on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:19:08 AM PDT

                                  •  It's a devisive issue for all of Americans

                                    and should be discussed by our leaders.

                                    by homey on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:20:41 AM PDT

                                    •  Why not discuss Jennifer Lopez?

                                      No it is not an issue for all Americans. They only feel that way because of people like Falwell who preach fear and hatred. It affects no one in any way except for happy gay couples who are kept from legitimizing their relationship. Two friends of mine got married in Belgium and guess what - Fire and brimstone have not fallen from the sky. No one in this country even knows or is concerned about it except for their friends and family who are happy for them.

                                      But I can understand why people locked in loveless marriages brought on because their abstinent urges prompted them to marry too young, have too many kids because of a fear of contrception and now they are stuck with an unhappy life. I can see why they wouldn't want two men who've been in love fopr fifteen years to be married and live happily together.

                                      by stupidgit on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:35:53 AM PDT

                                      •  I don't follow your Jennifer Lopez point

                                        You wrote:

                                        "No it is not an issue for all Americans. They only feel that way because..."

                                        So it is an issue, then - glad we agree.  If it's an issue, it should be discussed by our leaders.

                                        by homey on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:37:23 AM PDT

                                        •  It is not an issue.

                                          I mentioned Jennifer Lopez because she and her many marriages are an "issue" to most Americans. It doesn't mean it is an issue that matters.

                                          by stupidgit on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:39:22 AM PDT

                                          •  so it's not an issue to them,

                                            they only feel that it is?

                                            Sorry, but that makes no sense to me.

                                            by homey on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:47:27 AM PDT

                                            •  How does gay marriage affect you?

                                              If it is a real issue then how does it affect America? What negative effect will it have on our lives?

                                              by stupidgit on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:52:22 AM PDT

                                              •  none on my life

                                                but who's to say?  I don't speak for everyone, so I don't know.

                                                Tell you what, let's have a debate and find out.

                                                by homey on Thu May 18, 2006 at 12:29:14 PM PDT

                                                •  OK...

                                                  But let's also have a debate on how Jennifer Lopez's marriages affect our lives. And Rudy Guiliani's marriages affect our lives. Let's have a debate on how your personal life choices effect our lives and tell you who you can marry and who you can love.

                                                  Let's have congress debate everyone's personal choices and make everything in our lives into a decision controlled by the federal government.

                                                  by stupidgit on Thu May 18, 2006 at 02:39:38 PM PDT

                                                  •  If they become issues, then sure

                                                    if the issues become devisive for Americans, then yeah, our leaders should discuss ways to resolve it.

                                                    I just doubt JLO's marriages are going to become an issue.

                                                    by homey on Fri May 19, 2006 at 05:39:57 AM PDT

                                •  There are lots of folks who need to be alienated

                                  Religious fundamentalists already have so much power in our country that I don't think we need to be pandering to the likes of Fred Phelps. If people want to march in protest against gays that is their right but just like the anti-war crowd that marches against the war and is branded "America Haters" as a way of alienating them we have the right to brand homophobes as "Human Haters" and "bigots" as a way of alienating them.

                                  That is what Feingold was doing was saying that this "debate" is stupid and you people are out of your mind.

                                  If you support the banning of gay marriage then do what you feel you must. Support leaders who are working to make it a national issue to win more elections and push an agenda of intolerance on our country but in a time of global crisis with war, environmental destruction, disease, poverty and economic perils - I don't feel adding more intolerance to the fire is a good move.

                                  by stupidgit on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:26:45 AM PDT

                                  •  If those who 'don't want to hear it'

                                    excuse themselves from the debate, guess who the only folks left talking will be?

                                    If you strongly oppose the amendment, it is your OBLIGATION to debate it.

                                    by homey on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:28:59 AM PDT

                                    •  I will debate it - and am.

                                      I have nothing against debating it. Our leaders should be discussing important topics.

                                      by stupidgit on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:37:30 AM PDT

                              •  No, he doesn't.

                                He's a troll. You can tell because he keeps repeating the same things.

                                by expatjourno on Thu May 18, 2006 at 12:09:18 PM PDT

                                •  Maybe so...

                                  He praises the value and meaning of "debate" but refuses to actually practice it when it comes down to the specifics of the issue being debated. I've asked about enshrining bigotry in the Constitution, I've asked him about how meaningful the Wannsee debate was prior to the Holocaust and I've asked him about the distinction between a mere "discussion among leaders" and a formal Floor debate on a pending bigoted Constitutional amendment and all we get are the same one-liners...

                                  by Viceroy on Thu May 18, 2006 at 12:14:30 PM PDT

                                  •  Might also be a 13-year-old boy.

                                    by expatjourno on Thu May 18, 2006 at 12:17:36 PM PDT

                      •  Help me out

                        A) If the GOP had the votes to pass this measure, would that in itself elevate it to being worthy of debate?

                        B) If the GOP proposed and had the votes to pass what they considered to be a logical solution to the issue of gay marriage (let's say propose banning marriage but requiring all 50 states to acknowledge some form of domestic partnerships), does that make it worthy of debate?  Wouldn't such a proposal expand currently-existing gay rights?

                        I agree that Specter is a hack and that Feingold may have been justified in walking out.

                        But I'm not so sure that you can simply dismiss the issue as being unworthy of debate just because you (and I) think it's an awful proposal and politically motivated.  

                        You and I are for expanding, not limiting civil, liberties.  But that doesn't make proposals to limit them automatically unworthy of consideration.  Is debate over the ongoing necessity for affirmative action legitimate only if you're debating how to expand it?  Are you not acknowledging the legitimacy of deeply- and honestly-held viewpoints of millions of people, regardless of whether we consider them bigots?

                        Like it or not, a significant percentage of our population hates the idea of gay marriage and would love to see it banned or limited.  We have to address it.  It's not going to go away by us walking out of debates.

                        I'd hope that further debate would enlighten the public, whether it's to win them over to our view or to point out the crass politics behind this move.

                        by gsbadj on Thu May 18, 2006 at 01:18:49 PM PDT

                        •  Constitutional Amendment

                          Many people hate gays.  Many more people want to see a ban on gay marriage.  But very few of them want to see it taken as far as a constitutional amendment.  That, in my opinion, is what makes this a ridiculous "debate".  If you want to pass a law to ban gay marriage, then debate that.  If you want to pass a law to allow gay marriage, then debate that.

                          But bringing this issue up to the level of constitutional amendment makes it beyond ridiculous.  Virtually everybody in DC agree that this tripe has no chance in hell of overcoming the required hurdles to become a constitutional amendment.  Therefore, the fact that this step is even being considered is a waste.

                          Yes, the gay marriage issue needs to be discussed.  Gay rights in general needs to be discussed in this country.  But stupid fucking ideas like constitutional amendments need to be left out of the discussion.

                          If I see a verifiable poll where over 50% of Americans are in support of a constitutional amendment to ban gays from marrying each other, then fine, I'll sit back and shut up.  Til then, we need to drop dumbass "debates" like this.

                          Walking out of debates will not make this issue go away.  But sitting around and debating drastic ideas like this only makes it easier for the Republicans to "relent" & "compromise" with merely banning gay marriage altogether.  Call it framing the debate, working the refs, or whatever.  Giving ludicrous ideas like this any semblence of respect only plays into the crazy fuckers playbook.

                          by JoeOhioan on Thu May 18, 2006 at 02:03:28 PM PDT

                          •  I gotcha

                            When I read your preceding comment, I read it to mean that, in your view, the entire issue should be off the table because it represented a a limitation on, as opposed to an expansion of, civil liberties.  That's what I was trying to get you to clarify because I don't buy that and this last comment suggests that you might not have been saying that in any event.

                            You might be right about them working the refs by talking about this issue.

                            But I guess I'm not as confident that the public will reject the GOP position unless we call it out as the vicious BS it is.  We don't need to be polite either.

                            Crazy fuckers or not, they managed to snooker over 1/2 the populace into thinking (at one time) that Saddam was in tight with Al Qaeda.  We can't leave the whole playing field to them.

                            by gsbadj on Thu May 18, 2006 at 02:21:06 PM PDT

                •  Let us know when you want to debate throwing

                  conservative Christians to the lions.  At least it would make the wingnuts happy, since they could finally point to being persecuted without bearing further false witness.  I do suspect, however, that the lions would throw them back at us.  Just something about tainted meat.

                  by grada3784 on Thu May 18, 2006 at 01:54:28 PM PDT

            •  Some things are beyond debate

              Would it be good to have a debate about the repeal of slavery in the US?

              How about a debate on evolution?

              Some issues are fundamental -- human rights, for example, or scientific evidence -- and debating them serves no good purpose.

              by pat208 on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:57:29 AM PDT

              •  Especially considering

                how time is limited in deliberative bodies like the Senate.

                Specter is engaging in cheap political posturing at the expense of conducting serious business.

                by corvo on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:00:24 AM PDT

              •  There is nothing fundamental

                about gay marriage.  it's an issue.

                the repeal of slavery is not a contentious issue.  evolution might be, but not much of one.

                by homey on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:09:56 AM PDT

                •  You're missing the point

                  You've made an absurd claim that debate is valuable for its own sake. I'm calling bullshit on that point.

                  Debate has no intrinsic value. At its best it serves more fundamental purposes of enlightenment, inclusion, fair process, etc.

                  It also can be used to inflame, obscure, confuse and pander. Which is what is happening with the movement to  restrict access to marriage.

                  by pat208 on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:31:29 AM PDT

                  •  It can also be used to solve problems

                    Debate is more valuable than any other tool we have.

                    by homey on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:19:43 AM PDT

                    •  Ridicule is just as valuable...

                      especially when applied to a blatantly bigoted attempt to enshrine marital prohibition for gays and lesbians in the U.S. Constitution.  Given that you refuse to answer (or even address) my questions above which were designed to further "debate" as a valuable "tool," I can only conclude that you do not believe your own bullshit about the worthiness of "debate."

                      by Viceroy on Thu May 18, 2006 at 12:11:07 PM PDT

                      •  debate is the most valuable tool we possess

                        ridicule is just a form of debate.  a poor form, but a form nonetheless.

                        as for your questions, I believe i addressed them in your numbered post.

                        by homey on Thu May 18, 2006 at 01:01:25 PM PDT

                        •  Addressed them...

                          perhaps.  Answered them, no.  Debated them; not yet.  We continue to await the meaning in your "debate."

                          by Viceroy on Thu May 18, 2006 at 01:13:52 PM PDT

                          •  Look

                            I'll tell you what.  It seems like your history may be off if you think the Reichstag enacted the Nuremburg Laws.

                            YOU do the research, YOU post it here, links, sources, etc. to make your point.

                            And maybe I'll look it over.

                            by homey on Thu May 18, 2006 at 01:17:24 PM PDT

                            •  PS

                              I suggest you don't waste your time since I'm out of here in 20 minutes.

                              But I may have time to take a look at it tomorrow.

                              by homey on Thu May 18, 2006 at 01:18:36 PM PDT

            •  In this Senate?

              They don't debate they showcase their prejudices so that their base is mollified. This is to shed heat not light and who exactly is close-minded on this issue? Feingold because he objects to discrimination and abuse of the Constitution? Me because I know what they're up to with this so-called issue? It's distraction from the real issues of the day and just another way to destroy privacy rights.

              by vcmvo2 on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:00:54 AM PDT

            •  Apparently...

              You've been hibernating for the last 6 years.

              There is no point in debating an amendment designed solely to throw red meat to a bunch of fundamentalist fanatics. This amendment is political trickery, and is not meant to address any "issues." Debating it only qualifies it as legitimate, which it is not. We don't put amendments in the Constitution to force people to live as second-class citizens. Period, end of story.

              Welcome back to the waking world, homey.

              by sohei on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:53:21 AM PDT

            •  Would you favor debating relegalizing slavery?

              by normal family on Thu May 18, 2006 at 12:53:16 PM PDT

              •  if the climate were becoming such

                that it was a contentious issue, hell yeah i'd want to talk about that.  i'd be scared stiff, and demanding debate!

                by homey on Thu May 18, 2006 at 01:46:38 PM PDT

        •  Tantrum?

          What you call a tantrum, I call standing up for the rights of millions of people.

          It's all a matter of perspective.

          by The Icelander on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:36:11 AM PDT

          •  Standing up for whom?

            He's not standing up for anyone if he storms out.

            I just think that a Senator that cared about an issue would stick around, and be able to take a little heated debate without this sort of behavior.

            by homey on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:38:19 AM PDT

            •  As a resident of Wisconsin

              and a person who has voted for Russ Feingold three times now, I say he stood up for me.  Leaving is taking a stand.  It says that the argument/debate is not worthy of his(my)time and money. That is a valid stand.  All stands do not have to be verbal.

              by strengthof10kmen on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:36:58 AM PDT

            •  I have been reading ...

              ... your one-note argument.  My problem with your reasoning is that you are assuming that what goes on in this committee is "debate."  That is a false assumption, given this Republican Senate and Congress.

              If you know anything about Russ Feingold, you should know that he is not shy about debate.  He is the only one who voted against the Patriot Act -- and the Iraq War ... and the list goes on.  So for you to assume he just left the committee meeting in a fit of pique is disingenuous.

              by Nigh