Skip to comments.Defense of Marriage Amendment debate on CSPAN2 LIVE THREAD
Posted on 07/12/2004 10:26:34 AM PDT by abnegation
And so it begins.....
If you feel that way, why did you bother to post to the thread?
"What a festering pile of CRAP this amendment is!"
I disagree. I believe we need to start strengthening marriage since it is the foundation on which society is built.
Ah, but since you think this is a topic not worth spending time on, I'm sure you won't be responding to this post. You have more important things to do.
Culturaly I feel like I'm on Omaha Beach and the Panzers are coming down the cliffs.
Yes, and sponsored by BOTH of my Senators (Craig and Crapo, ID). For once, I don't have to call them to complain either! LOL
"`Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."
Thanks for putting up the language, Oxen. This matters. This is not c@#9.
When the very foundation of our societal structure is degraded, I can think of no more important piece of legislation to get in place ASAP.
When our founding fathers used the phrase, "we hold these truths to be self-evident", never in their wildest dreams were they imagining the depths of depravity that we would be debating as "rights" less than 250 years later.
The amendment doesn't have a SINGLE Senate Democratic co-sponsor. Not even Joe Lieberman or Zell Miller. What is it about the Democrats that they talk about American values but can't bring themselves to support the most important of them all? Which is an American as apple pie. Anyway, however the Senate votes, this will tell us a great deal on what Congress thinks about our most important social institution and its future and the sad part is these people need a LOT of convincing to do the right thing.
Santorum is doing an excellent job of explaining why this is important, etc.
A totally phony argument which a lot of gutless Republicans will buy into also. If this issue where brought to the vote of the American people, it would pass by a landslide. Here, its our elected representatives who for once, are out of touch with public opinion.
Santorem is doing a good job defending this amendment. "Children need mothers and fathers and society should be all about that." Hard to believe we have come to the point where this has to be fought for.
What a festering pile of CRAP this amendment is!
Last time I looked, the vast majority of the country didn't agree with you regarding gay "marriage". Now, why not run along and join you buds at DU.
ZELL is on it now.
Its simple common sense. What has happened to our country that the proposition Sen. Santorum put forth has become so controversial?
Whatever they say, they are not really talking about rights. They are talking about the privilege of employers paying for benefits. I am no fan of government ordered benefits. If an employer has the means and the inclination to offer benefits to gay couples then that's great. In fact, the big companies (which are supposed to be the cornerstone of the vrwc) offer partner benefits. It's the small business that gets hosed.
Wouldn't it be healthier for people to do what they think is right and not rely on others to pay for those decisions?
Unfortunately, debate is as far as it will go as it will never pass.
Up to 70% of the American people in various states from Republican, conservative Alaska to Democratic, liberal Hawaii have backed protecting traditional marriage. A partisan issue it ain't.
I didn't say it was valid..I merely explained how the Dems will positin and spin it..
We will see. The debate can still be enlightening to the country in telling us what the Democrats mean by American values.
It's obvious when a DUer infests FR; you can smell them.
Right, so let's focus on the reason that so many actual marriages fail, rather than trying to stop people who want to be married from getting married. Britney Spears can get married and then annulled in 55 hours, and can then get engaged to her boyfriend, who happens to be the fiance to the woman with whom he has one child and another on the way, and there's no problem with that. But two guys who have been together for 15 years want to get married, and woah! We need an amendment to our Constitution! This is a cheap political stunt, and it makes the GOP look petty.