Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gay marriage vote appears doomed
MSNBC.com ^ | 7/13/04 | Tom Curry

Posted on 07/13/2004 10:13:55 AM PDT by truthandlife

Senate Democrats on Tuesday appeared headed toward a tactical victory over the hot-button issue of gay marriage.

What seemed likely Monday — an up-or-down Senate vote on a proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage as only "the union of a man and a woman" — appeared very doubtful a day later as Republican and Democratic leaders were unable to agree on a procedure for a vote.

Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has scheduled a Wednesday vote on cloture, a procedural move that would limit debate on the topic and allow the Senate to proceed to voting on the proposed amendment itself.

Senators who who want to avoid casting election-year votes on the amendment, one way or the other, will vote against cloture and it seems unlikely that Frist will be able to muster the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture and allow a vote on the amendment.

That will let Democrats who didn't want to cast a vote on the question of whether marriage should be limited to heterosexual couples breathing easier.

(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Government
KEYWORDS: anarchy; attackingthefamily; cultureofdeath; culturewar; democrats; fma; godsjudgement; hedonism; hollywoodsvalues; homosexualagenda; homosexualbehavior; homosexuals; lawlessness; marriage; mockinggod; mtvculture; popculture; romans1; secularhumanism; senate; sinators; spiritualbattle; wagesofsin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-64 next last

1 posted on 07/13/2004 10:13:58 AM PDT by truthandlife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: truthandlife

Gay marriage vote appears doomed ....... for now. The issue has lots of fire


2 posted on 07/13/2004 10:16:49 AM PDT by rface (Ashland, Missouri - monthly donor - bad speller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
That will let Democrats who didn't want to cast a vote on the question of whether marriage should be limited to heterosexual couples breathing easier.

No it won't. It shows that they are afraid to show how they would vote. This issue can still be used against them.

3 posted on 07/13/2004 10:18:14 AM PDT by ladtx ( "Remember your regiment and follow your officers." Captain Charles May, 2d Dragoons, 9 May 1846)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
Since the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress to propose an amendment, Senate proponents of the measure need 67 votes, a number they seemed unlikely to muster, at least this year.

Not completely true. The Constitution provides another method for proposing amendments.

”A Convention for Proposing Amendments…as Part of This Constitution”

4 posted on 07/13/2004 10:19:11 AM PDT by Publius (Mother Nature is a hanging judge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife

Force the vote and get all democrat senators who vote against it on record as having done so then wipe them out in November.


5 posted on 07/13/2004 10:21:44 AM PDT by CzarNicky (The problem with bad ideas is that they seemed like good ideas at the time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife; Congressman Billybob

Frist should force the Democrats to debate this issue on the floor. They should be forced to do a real filibuster where someone has to be talking at all times. I'd love to see the news filled with clips of DemocRATS saying why they oppose this amendment.


6 posted on 07/13/2004 10:26:25 AM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife

Ah the good ol' Senate Republicans. They are so useful to us aren't they?


7 posted on 07/13/2004 10:27:59 AM PDT by snarkytart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
I'd love to see the news filled with clips of DemocRATS saying why they oppose this amendment.

I'm pretty sure most of the clips would be of Democrats reading the phone book, or something like that. LOL

8 posted on 07/13/2004 10:28:51 AM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
Tactical victory, my @rse. Every time these swine are forced to vote against marriage and in favor of homo grotesqueries, it's a tactical victory for our side.

If I were Frist, I'd have a vote on this every week.
9 posted on 07/13/2004 10:32:00 AM PDT by Antoninus (Federal Marriage Amendment, NOW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative; truthandlife

The problem is that it's not just democrats. It's everyone and anyone in the senate who's afraid of casting a divisive vote in an election year.


10 posted on 07/13/2004 10:39:28 AM PDT by Melas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife

Dems dropped the gun issue after 2000. Now they may drop gay marriage in 2004. Where is Gun Control and Gays going to turn to? Nader??? In a three way America, GOP rules forever.


11 posted on 07/13/2004 10:42:10 AM PDT by Fee (Amatuers always tell you what they want, but it is the professionals who figure out the logistics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife

I hope it fails and am prepared to rally against it. It's an abuse of the constitutional amendment process. The US Constitution is meant to restrict federal gov't's intrusiveness. In this country, "marriage" has always been the domain of the states and should remain so.

I love the politics of convenience around here.


12 posted on 07/13/2004 10:43:13 AM PDT by newzjunkey (No more Floridas: Can "W" actually win this thing outright?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

Do you really think the Democrats will be content to leave it to the states? No, they will make it mandatory for all 50, just like they do with every other pet liberal cause.


13 posted on 07/13/2004 10:49:52 AM PDT by Pete98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
Lots of people say they are against homosexual "marriage" but when push comes to shove only a minority really care enough to try and actually do anything about it. The moral rot has spread far enough and weakened the national character enough that just about anything is open for discussion these days. The democrat party will NOT disavow homosexual "rights" or homosexual "marriage". The public will NOT rise up to end this and the democrats will discover that their stance on the issue is not the liability it at first appears to be. The courts will continue to advance the homosexual agenda; the politicians will continue to dance around the issue and in another few years (I predict by 2009) homosexual "marriage" will be the norm and those opposing it will be seen as extremist kooks and religious fanatics. I think that by 2010 homosexuals will receive the same legal preferences here that they do in many European countries and in Canada and opposition to their agenda will be effectively muzzled because it will mean large fines and/or jail time to oppose it.

I am feeling a bit pessimistic today.
14 posted on 07/13/2004 10:51:57 AM PDT by scory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Publius

Terrible Idea. It will be hijacked and the 2nd will be removed.


15 posted on 07/13/2004 10:52:59 AM PDT by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey; truthandlife; little jeremiah; *Homosexual Agenda
In this country, "marriage" has always been the domain of the states and should remain so.

Unfortunately, the "full faith and credit" clause means that the rest of us may be forced to bow before the Massachusetts Supreme Court's unconsitutional declaration. We need this amendment to protect the rest of us from such abuses. In the long run, we need something to limit judicial activism in the long run but this is the issue that is being trust upon us so we must respond and protect our society.

16 posted on 07/13/2004 10:56:13 AM PDT by FormerLib (Kosova: "land stolen from Serbs and given to terrorist killers in a futile attempt to appease them.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: scory

It is neither pessimistic nor paranoid to properly describe the agenda of our enemies as you have done here.


17 posted on 07/13/2004 10:57:46 AM PDT by FormerLib (Kosova: "land stolen from Serbs and given to terrorist killers in a futile attempt to appease them.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: scory

I think you are right on. I think God has given this nation over to its own depravity.

God's Wrath Against Mankind

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.


18 posted on 07/13/2004 11:06:50 AM PDT by truthandlife ("Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God." (Ps 20:7))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: scory

I think you are right on. I think God has given this nation over to its own depravity.

God's Wrath Against Mankind (Romans 1)

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.


19 posted on 07/13/2004 11:07:56 AM PDT by truthandlife ("Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God." (Ps 20:7))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: *Homosexual Agenda; EdReform; scripter; GrandMoM; backhoe; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; saradippity; ...

Homosexual Agenda Ping. I don't know, the Senate pretty much seems like some giant dead animal that is starting to stink bad. Flies buzzing around.

I wish to God that the RINO Senators will be voted out very soon. How hard is it to recall Senators? Of course, it would be great to replace many of the D Senators with real conservative Republicans.

But even with the GOP majority, it seems very hard to get anything good done or bad prevented. [I do understand they need a larger majority to really have power. But they squander what they could have because of RINOS and their appeasing attitude in general. Go along to get along.] Look at the recent rider on the Defense Spending bill - adding "Sexual Orientation" to the already repulsive "Hate Crimes" list of preferred victims.

Big Tent Republicanism is just Nevill Chamberlain saying "peace in our time".

Let me know if you want on/off this pinglist.

P.S. If more states enact "gay" marriage permitting laws (if you can call it that, considering f'rinstance in MASS it was just a judge or two that reigned supreme) then the time has come for mass civil disobedience. Anyone - whether they call themselves Christian or any of the many varieties, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, whatever - who opposes the "gay" agenda should stand up and refuse to cooperate with "gay" marriage. Even at the cost of jobs, money, social approval, or whatever.

What is the use of gaining the world and losing the culture war? Letting the homosexual rights crowd rule the entire world? Keep in mind that if those of us opposed to promoting and normalizing deviance had fought this years ago, we would not be in the sorry pass we are currently sunk in. We should have known better, seen it coming. Primarily people are too entranced by the desire to be comfortable, "liked", and more or less asleep at the wheel.


20 posted on 07/13/2004 11:09:52 AM PDT by little jeremiah ("You're possibly the most ignorant, belligerent, and loathesome poster on FR currently." - tdadams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scory

Don't give up hope! All is not lost yet. The more people wake up to the truth of what the homosexuals have planned for us, the more people will realize the extreme gravity of the situation and become courageous and determined. FR is an excellent tool to learn the truth, and we should all try to spread the word - about FR, and the truth that is to be found here.

Check the Homosexual Agenda Archives, or Scripter's Index of articles* (he or EdReform usually post links, they're off duty right now!) and copy, email, or print out some of the awesome information they've collected. Send it to your email address book (watch out, you may become a black sheep...), print some out and distribute them at church, synagogue, at family gatherings, clubs, and so on. People who don't read FR or the other conservative websites or magazines often are completely in the dark about what is really happening.

Enlighten them! And you'd be amazed at how the sleeping giant may awaken. If those of us who are concerned about the "gay" jihad try to let others know the truth, and then THEY do the same, who knows what the result may be?

*Just do a search on scripter and find his profile page, it's all there!


21 posted on 07/13/2004 11:15:59 AM PDT by little jeremiah ("You're possibly the most ignorant, belligerent, and loathesome poster on FR currently." - tdadams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: scory

You are most probably right. The opposition doesn't want to be vilified and alot of Christians hide behind "the Bible tells us not to judge others".


22 posted on 07/13/2004 11:26:58 AM PDT by Jaded (Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society. - Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Jaded

You're right. We should answer by saying, "I'm not judging people, I'm judging behavior, and I'm using the Bible."


23 posted on 07/13/2004 11:41:19 AM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah; All; scripter

Just to let y'all know what's going on here in RI...

I just had a rather interesting, and frankly, eye-opening conversation with a staffer at Senator Linc Chafee's (R-RIno) office this morning.

According to her, the Senator's Washington office has received "thousands" of petitions, and "hundreds" of phone calls from concerned citizens encouraging the Senator to vote in support of the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Yet, despite the outcry, his positioning remains the same. He does not support an amendment to the US constitution, he believes it should be an issue left up to individual states, and his "official" position is in support of "civil unions".

In other words, his people are telling him what they want, and he's still doing whatever the f**k he chooses. He has no concept of what a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC is!

Rage, fury, dissapointment, pessimism...I'm feeling it all...


24 posted on 07/13/2004 11:42:41 AM PDT by ItsOurTimeNow ("Forth now! And fear no Darkness!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey
I hope it fails and am prepared to rally against it. It's an abuse of the constitutional amendment process. The US Constitution is meant to restrict federal gov't's intrusiveness. In this country, "marriage" has always been the domain of the states and should remain so.

The proposed amendment doesn't increase the federal government's power, and the United States Constitution itself isn't by definition coextensive with the power of the federal government.

What the proposed amendment would cure would be the very rare situation where a state has managed to figure out a way to intrude upon the power of the other states - specifically, by abusing the Full Faith and Credit clause. The federal government has nothing to do with the matter.

25 posted on 07/13/2004 11:43:46 AM PDT by SedVictaCatoni
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ItsOurTimeNow

It's our job (conservatives, FR, etc) to make the Senate scared to NOT vote on the FMA. We have to make them.


26 posted on 07/13/2004 11:47:47 AM PDT by votelife (Calling abortion a women's issue is like calling war a men's issue!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: votelife

*sigh* At this point, I really don't think they care anymore. This is a classic example. Thousands of petitions, hundreds of phone calls...from a state with a total population of only around 1 million...and the Republican state senator simply doesn't give a shit.

Last month, I organized a "Defense of Marriage" rally. In about 3 weeks' time, we we able to gather about 300 people. Not too shabby. But...I didn't even get a call back from the state RNC, our Republican senator, or the Republican congressional hopeful, who's running against Patty Kennedy this fall.

They just don't care.


27 posted on 07/13/2004 11:53:28 AM PDT by ItsOurTimeNow ("Forth now! And fear no Darkness!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: snarkytart
Ah the good ol' Senate Republicans. They are so useful to us aren't they?

I have hoped since 1998 that all Trent Lott, Olympia Snowe, et al have received for Christmas is the contents of a West Virginia coal mine. Weak-kneed self-serving gobshite that they are.

Regards, Ivan

28 posted on 07/13/2004 11:56:09 AM PDT by MadIvan (Ronald Reagan - proof positive that one man can change the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ItsOurTimeNow

When is this RINO up for re-election? You need to get going and get him replaced now.


29 posted on 07/13/2004 12:04:46 PM PDT by AReaganGirl (President Reagan gave us back our confidence. We miss you, President Reagan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Yesterday I telephone the office of Craig Thomas (R-WY) and was politely told that 'Senator Thomas has not made up his mind yet'. Crockola! His cohort from Wyoming, Mike Enzi, has and will vote for the amendment. Thomas always gave the impression that he was conservative but, oh well, its better that we know now so we can vote his a$$ out of office.


30 posted on 07/13/2004 12:18:25 PM PDT by hardhead (Unfathomable Paradox: A Destitute Lawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: AReaganGirl

'06.

If it takes everything I have, he will be out of a job in two years.


31 posted on 07/13/2004 12:18:49 PM PDT by ItsOurTimeNow ("They got a pepper baaarrrrrr!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
I'm pretty sure most of the clips would be of Democrats reading the phone book, or something like that. LOL

So that would leave Republicans free to attack the DemocRATS' positions without any response.

32 posted on 07/13/2004 12:22:05 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife

Just as well. This not an issue that required a Constitutional amendment and would have set a bad precedent. Regardless of whether one supports a ban on gay marriage, this was not the way to go about it.


33 posted on 07/13/2004 12:22:52 PM PDT by tortoise (All these moments lost in time, like tears in the rain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rface
The issue has lots of fire.

All flash, no heat.

34 posted on 07/13/2004 12:23:30 PM PDT by Zeroisanumber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black
At a Convention for Proposing Amendments under Article V, the 2nd Amendment will only be repealed if two-thirds of the States Assembled in Convention approve such an amendment and if the legislatures (or ratifying conventions) of three-quarters of the Several States ratify such an amendment.

You have nothing to worry about. All it takes is 13 states to say No at ratification time, and any proposed amendment is dead.

Trust the Framers.

35 posted on 07/13/2004 12:32:42 PM PDT by Publius (Mother Nature is a hanging judge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: tortoise
"This not an issue that required a Constitutional amendment and would have set a bad precedent. Regardless of whether one supports a ban on gay marriage, this was not the way to go about it."

It is the only way to go to avoid the inevitable cadre of lefist judges redefining what society has already determined to be so. Regardless of any circumstantial particulars, or claims, marriage is and is universally recognized as a mutually agree to contract between a man and a woman.

Only those elements of reality that pose a threat to leftists causes in general are subject to such radical redefinition. In this case it's important enough to pass the amendment and postpone consideration of a more general amendment that would protect the identity and meaning of reality itself.

36 posted on 07/13/2004 12:34:54 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Zeroisanumber

..... more like a simmering bed of red hot coals.


37 posted on 07/13/2004 12:46:15 PM PDT by rface (Ashland, Missouri - monthly donor - bad speller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: rface
..... more like a simmering bed of red hot coals.

No heat. How else do you explain the pasting it's getting in the Senate?

38 posted on 07/13/2004 12:48:11 PM PDT by Zeroisanumber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: tortoise

Then what is the way to do it? Roll over, play dead, and let the homosexual rightists and their minions have their way with us?

What third option is there, or do you prefer the second option, above?


39 posted on 07/13/2004 12:49:30 PM PDT by little jeremiah ("You're possibly the most ignorant, belligerent, and loathesome poster on FR currently." - tdadams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ItsOurTimeNow

You did an amazing job, It's - really inspiring. And in the face of silence from Republicans who SHOULD have supported and applauded your efforts. RI is such a liberal sinkhole. Yet there are conservatives who live there - the state gov't is Mafia run and liberally larded. (AFAIK!)


40 posted on 07/13/2004 12:53:24 PM PDT by little jeremiah ("You're possibly the most ignorant, belligerent, and loathesome poster on FR currently." - tdadams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife

The Senate was the graveyard for the "Contract With America" and now it looks like the Rats and RINOs are once again up to their same old tricks.


41 posted on 07/13/2004 12:59:23 PM PDT by Prince Charles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
What third option is there, or do you prefer the second option, above?

Your whole argument is premised on one enormous false dichotomy. Only a short-sighted fool writes legislation into the Constitution, and it opens up a very nasty Pandora's Box.

Alternative #1: Get the government out of the marriage business altogether. You didn't need to ask permission from the government to get married way back in the day. It has been nothing but a disaster since it left the church and became what is primarily a government entitlement of sorts. All it does is give politicians a vehicle to do social engineering; great when your team is in power, not so great when Hillary is President.

Alternative #2: Let the States decide. Since gay marriage laws have failed spectacularly when left to the voters even in States like California, they won't go anywhere. The "full faith and credit" clause won't apply even if a couple States do pass it, any more than it does for most other things e.g. CCW.

Of these two more structurally correct alternatives, Alternative #1 is by far the most bulletproof of the bunch. Evil politicians can't abuse it, judges can't abuse it, and you don't engage in the profoundly stupid act of legislating in the Federal Constitution.

I don't need foolhardy conservatives jeopardizing the long-term situation in this country so that they can gain a short-term political "victory", particularly over such a nebulous issue. There are many ways to take the issue off the table for the homosexual lobby without doing something equally stupid in the opposite direction.

42 posted on 07/13/2004 1:10:19 PM PDT by tortoise (All these moments lost in time, like tears in the rain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife

Linguini-spined Republicans let Democrats escape again. Frist should have said the Senate will be in session on this issue until hell freezes over cause we will have an up or down vote. They let the Democrats chicken out on a winning issue for our side. <disgust


43 posted on 07/13/2004 1:23:08 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

I dont have any faith in the lickspittle Republicans ability to do the right thing. They can't even stand up to the Democrats on judicial nominations.


44 posted on 07/13/2004 1:24:25 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: snarkytart

Yep. The GOP-controlled Senate has been a graveyard for conservative legislation. We need friends like these like we need enemies.


45 posted on 07/13/2004 1:25:35 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
Frist should force the Democrats to debate this issue on the floor. They should be forced to do a real filibuster where someone has to be talking at all times. I'd love to see the news filled with clips of DemocRATS saying why they oppose this amendment.

While I agree, we know that the nutless leadership won't do this or they would have done it to force a vote on the judical nominees.

46 posted on 07/13/2004 1:26:16 PM PDT by j_tull ("I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ItsOurTimeNow

Same thing here. Don't let the outcome bother you. Its one of those times two-thirds of the Senate don't reflect the will of the people of this country. A pro-marriage amendment would pass by a landslide at the polls. They just don't get it in Washington cause they don't represent us when it counts.


47 posted on 07/13/2004 1:28:14 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ItsOurTimeNow

Yep. Only a small number of people care passionately enough about the issue... its like abortion. We can hope to affect the debate for now from the margins. Remember, this is just the first of many votes. The issue won't go away as long as liberal judges keep imposing the gay agenda on the country.


48 posted on 07/13/2004 1:30:56 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: scory

"The courts will continue to advance the homosexual agenda; the politicians will continue to dance around the issue and in another few years (I predict by 2009) homosexual "marriage" will be the norm and those opposing it will be seen as extremist kooks and religious fanatics."

Except for homosexual marriage being the norm, everything you said here is already true. Anyone opposing homosexual marriage now, is already viewed as extremist and fanatical.


49 posted on 07/13/2004 1:34:50 PM PDT by ChevyZ28 (Let's call it what it is. Abortion is murder by another name.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Hey you people from New Jersey. Lautenberg is up there stating he gets no calls. The American people are not concerned abour morality issues. In summary, we don't give a hoot.


50 posted on 07/13/2004 1:39:42 PM PDT by maxter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-64 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson