Why did the senate not veto the no gay law?

Question

I am wondering why the senate did not veto it. Are some on the senate gay? If so Who????

Answer 1

The Ban Gay Marriage law is wrong. Bush said it himself, people should be able to choose how they live. That should include the gays too. I didn't think the Senate had the power to veto a law, I thought only the president did. I never learned much as far as all that goes, but I still believe that gays should be treated equally.

Answer 2

I dont think it's that the majority of the Senate is for gays, but they were deciding on an additional Constitutional amendment. The reason was probably that the amendment wasn't structured correctly, many senators could've agreed with the idea of the law (which would only permit a marriage between a man and a woman) but disagreed with the way the law was structured or the points of the law.

By the way, a question for the answerer who said that it's unconstitutional to pass such a law as this one: Where in the Constitution does it say anything supporting gay marriage?

There are many different ways to interpret the Constitution, but two of the most reliable are strict-construction and orginalism. In the first, we go by exactly what the Constitution says- nowhere in the Constitution does it define gay marriage as being just and right. When we use originalism to interpret the text we go by what the founders would have intended and use their values and beliefs to interpret the meanings in the Constitution. I'm sure that if we asked our founders (i.e. Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin) for their thoughts on the subject, they would have all been against it. Why? Because unlike many of us today, they had morals.

Answer 3

The family support structure has shown to be more effective when there is both a mother and father involved in a child's upbringing. In other countries, such as the Netherlands, data has shown the breakdown of marriage as a national institution since the introduction of legalized same-sex marriage. You will find the values associated with marriage will change tremendously once you "redefine" the fundamentals.

The traits and values that children pick up from both sexes also help answer important questions they encounter through the adolescent years. There is nothing wrong with gay and lesbian couples in society, and I'm not against that. But marriage is a sacred institution that doesn't need to change to accomodate those who don't share the same values that started marriage in the first place.

Think about it, church institutions can be sued for not allowing gay marriages. You are infringing on other institutions by making it a "right". You need an amendment in the CONSTITUTION because federal courts are trumphing the states' wishes. What is state law (and approved by a majority of the state) is being denied at the federal level. That is the reason it's the appropriate venue.

Answer 4

The senate voted to end debate. There was not enough votes to end the debate. If there were, it would have been put forward for a vote to make a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. This did not happen.

Answer 5

Gays do not deserve the protection a marriage law provides, since the purpose of a marriage law is to gauruntee child support and gays cannot foster children.

Answer 6

It's all the senators from my state's fault (Maine), Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. They are republicans yet think they are so different. They were the only republicans that voted against the bill. It lost by one vote thanks to Maine. Portland, Maine is second only to San Francisco in gays per capita, so it was probably to get themselves re-elected.

Answer 7

well not to seem like an asshole but its not that there gay or not its just that to do that would be unconstitutional and i don't think the senate is into breaking the law nowadays

Answer 8

The nature of the US Constitution is to CONFER rights upon the citizens. It is NOT an appropriate venue for ammendments to be used to DENY rights of any type to any group of persons.