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

Skip to comments.

Senate Scuttles Gay Marriage Amendment (Two no-shows. Care to guess?)
AP/ Yahoo ^ | 7/14/04 | David Espo

Posted on 07/14/2004 9:50:28 AM PDT by 11th Earl of Mar

Edited on 07/14/2004 10:13:18 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]

WASHINGTON - The Senate dealt an election-year defeat Wednesday to a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, rejecting pleas from President Bush (news - web sites) and fellow conservatives that the measure was needed to safeguard an institution that has flourished for thousands of years.

The vote was 48-50, 12 short of the 60 needed to keep the measure alive.

"I would argue that the future of our country hangs in the balance because the future of marriage hangs in the balance," said Sen. Rick Santorum, a leader in the fight to approve the measure. "Isn't that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?"

But Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle said there was no "urgent need" to amend the Constitution. "Marriage is a sacred union between men and women. That is what the vast majority of Americans believe. It's what virtually all South Dakotans believe. It's what I believe."

"In South Dakota, we've never had a single same sex marriage and we won't have any," he said. "It's prohibited by South Dakota law as it is now in 38 other states. There is no confusion. There is no ambiguity."

Supporters conceded in advance they would fail to win the support needed to advance the measure, and vowed to renew their efforts.

"I don't think it's going away after this vote," Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said Tuesday on the eve of the test vote. "I think the issue will remain alive," he added.

Whatever its future in Congress, there also were signs that supporters of the amendment intended to use it in the campaign already unfolding.

"The institution of marriage is under fire from extremist groups in Washington, politicians, even judges who have made it clear that they are willing to run over any state law defining marriage," Republican senatorial candidate John Thune says in a radio commercial airing in South Dakota. "They have done it in Massachusetts and they can do it here," adds Thune, who is challenging Daschle for his seat.

"Thune's ad suggests that some are using this amendment more to protect the Republican majority than to protect marriage," said Dan Pfeiffer, a spokesman for Daschle's campaign.

At issue was an amendment providing that marriage within the United States "shall consist only of a man and a woman."

A second sentence said that neither the federal nor any state constitution "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." Some critics argue that the effect of that provision would be to ban civil unions, and its inclusion in the amendment complicated efforts by GOP leaders to gain support from wavering Republicans.

Bush urged the Republican-controlled Congress last February to approve a constitutional amendment, saying it was needed to stop judges from changing the definition of the "most enduring human institution."

Bush's fall rival, Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) of Massachusetts, opposes the amendment, as does his vice presidential running mate, Sen. John Edwards (news - web sites) of North Carolina. Both men skipped the vote.

The odds have never favored passage in the current Congress, in part because many Democrats oppose it, but also because numerous conservatives are hesitant to overrule state prerogatives on the issue.

At the same time, Republican strategists contend the issue could present a difficult political choice to Democrats, who could be pulled in one direction by polls showing that a majority of voters oppose gay marriage, and pulled in the other by homosexual voters and social liberals who support it. An Associated Press-Ipsos poll taken in March showed about four in 10 support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and half oppose it.

Democrats said that Bush and Republicans were using the issue to distract attention from the war in Iraq (news - web sites) and the economy.

"The issue is not ripe. It is not needed. It's a waste of our time. We should be dealing with other issues," said Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut.

But Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said a decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court had thrust the matter upon the Senate. The ruling opened the way for same sex marriages in the state, and Frist predicted the impact would eventually be far broader.

"Same-sex marriage will be exported to all 50 states. The question is no longer whether the Constitution will be amended. The only question is who will amend it and how will it be amended," he added.

He said the choice was "activist judges" on the one hand and lawmakers on the other.


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: activistjudges; anarchy; culturewar; family; fma; goodvsevil; homosexualagenda; johnedwards; johnkerry; liberalsagenda; marriageamendment; oligarchy; onepercent; politicians; protectfamily; protectmarriage; rightvswrong; rmans1; romans1; samesexmarriage; spiritualbattle; wagesofsin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 501-526 next last
To: Merdoug

Besides bitching under an assumed name on the internet, what is your solution?


251 posted on 07/14/2004 12:23:49 PM PDT by 11th Earl of Mar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts

How did specter vote.

This issue is now owned by the Republicans.

A few more R's and the Rino's can't hide behind procedures.


252 posted on 07/14/2004 12:24:58 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: rhombus

Follow the money. This is all about getting federal money - SS, medicare, etc - which means that they want YOUR money.


253 posted on 07/14/2004 12:26:46 PM PDT by mathluv (Protect my grandchildren's future. Vote for Bush/Cheney '04.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Digger

Only after the D party is erased.

Basically, once the D is erased to the ash heap of history.

The rank and file will either join the Republicans or form a new party.

The power that be will form a new party or become dead enders.


The only only only way to form a new second party is to eliminate the Democrat part.

You have to elimintate the D party because they are the party of disperate interest groups. (homosexuals, communists, feminists, racists etc.)

In the future it will be best to have two leaning right parties than one left one right.

The left can drift in "green party" territory.


254 posted on 07/14/2004 12:28:31 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
Er, you do know that Article I, Section 8, not the Preamble, contains the list of legislative powers available to the federal government, right?

Does that include the right to sell yourself into slavery?

255 posted on 07/14/2004 12:29:43 PM PDT by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
What are you babbling about?
256 posted on 07/14/2004 12:31:15 PM PDT by steve-b (Panties & Leashes Would Look Good On Spammers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
We'll find out soon enough who voted for pushing dysfunctional sex fetishes and who voted for the American family and their children.
We'll know who was anti-family within 24 hours. The Republicans voting for all fetish marriage will pay for this. All the foot licker's, boy molesters, polygamists, animal chasers and tree humpers will be getting in line. What's Constitutional for one demented fetish is constitutional for all, and these Republicans will be the ones to blame for not stopping it.
257 posted on 07/14/2004 12:31:38 PM PDT by concerned about politics ( Liberals are still stuck at the bottom of Maslow's Hierarchy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts

Grahm in FL is not running. His seat is wide open.

HOWEVER, it kills pinelas and other "D"'s who have been open and HAVE VOTED.


BTW SOMBODY TELL FOX THIS IS NOT DEAD. IT WILL BE BACK!!!


258 posted on 07/14/2004 12:32:18 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
Both men skipped the vote.

Because they're both pro-fetish. They didn't want the American people to know, not until after the election, then they'll push for hate speech legislation to silence any descent.

259 posted on 07/14/2004 12:34:39 PM PDT by concerned about politics ( Liberals are still stuck at the bottom of Maslow's Hierarchy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas Federalist
Providing for the common defense is part of protecting individual liberty,

Individual liberty can only be protected if the common defense is first provided for. The common defense is an aspect of the common good. The common defense and the common good are logically prior to the State's promotion of individual liberty.

"Providing for the common good" is a much much broader concept than is contemplated by our Constitution

So why is "the general welfare" mentioned in the Preamble?

Maybe you consider "the general Welfare" and socialism to be synonymous. They're not.

260 posted on 07/14/2004 12:35:30 PM PDT by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics

Kerry advocates spending (giving away) SOCIAL SECURITY MONEY to reward homosexual sex partners.

Kerry advocates allowing homosexuals who are US citizens to be able to put fiance visas for homosexual sex partners.

Kerry advocates FEDERALizing recognisiton of "civil unions".

Kerry is ready to SPEND FEDERAL MONEY to reward homosexuals


261 posted on 07/14/2004 12:37:35 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: trebb
And 35 million homosexuals cheer

And the majority of them were bused in from Canada. The Republicans should be proud - NOT!

262 posted on 07/14/2004 12:41:50 PM PDT by concerned about politics ( Liberals are still stuck at the bottom of Maslow's Hierarchy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan

Marriage is about children.

Without an institution to promote children there is no society for the future.

Society does not reward the sex act, society rewards the result.

Homosexual acts never produce children.
Hetersexual acts do produce children.

Society is rewarding the institution of Marriage, not the individual in a marriage.


263 posted on 07/14/2004 12:42:09 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: Lunatic Fringe
Good news for the CONSTITUTION!

Your screen name suits you.

264 posted on 07/14/2004 12:43:19 PM PDT by concerned about politics ( Liberals are still stuck at the bottom of Maslow's Hierarchy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics

35 million?

Does that include prison inmates?

Victims of khomosexual rape?


265 posted on 07/14/2004 12:43:26 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
There is no authority for the proposition that Congress cannot remove a constitutional question from the jurisdiction of the federal courts altogether, although the topic is a subject of much debate. In the only case that directly addressed this issue, the Supreme Court upheld Congress's power to restrict the Court's appellate jurisdiction. In Ex Parte McCardle (1869), the Court unanimously upheld Congress's power to limit its jurisdiction, stating that "the power to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of this court is given by express words. What, then, is the effect of the repealing act upon the case before us? We cannot doubt as to this. Without jurisdiction, the court cannot proceed at all in any case." Although scholars argue that Congress cannot restrict the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to the extent that it intrudes upon the Court's "core functions," there is no question that Congress has more authority under the Constitution to act than it has recently exercised.

Also, I disagree that if it were easy to remove issues from the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary, that the liberals would have done so long ago. We all know that the liberals have benefitted more from a strong judiciary and would not want to travel down the slippery slope of limiting its power. I think the conservatives have just been too timid to do so.

266 posted on 07/14/2004 12:48:26 PM PDT by Texas Federalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
The Republicans voting for all fetish marriage will pay for this.

Nope. There's a reason that RINOs exist, and that is because the alternative is much worse. How many of us wouldn't replace Hillary Clinton with a RINO? All she does for us is provide a scary face when we need to raise money.

Here in WA, I'd love to see our two Rat senators replaced with RINOs. In order to get elected, and to stay elected, the RINOs would have to oppose the FMA. But they'd be valuable when it comes to approving President Bush's judicial nominees, or at least ensuring that important committee chairmanships stay in the hands of people from the more conservative states.

Anyone who is genuinely disappointed about the turnout of today's vote was living in a fantasy world, if they thought that there would be 67 votes for an FMA.

267 posted on 07/14/2004 12:48:32 PM PDT by hunter112
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics

Didn't expect a different vote from McPain in Arizona. The man is rarely in Arizona unless he's playing professional politician and kissing up to the "if it doesn't effect me directly" crowd. Would love to have him out of office, but no one has run against him. Am happy to have Jon Kyl as a senator, though. At least he listens to the people he represents.


268 posted on 07/14/2004 12:52:26 PM PDT by HungarianGypsy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
Without an institution to promote children there is no society for the future.

I keep wondering, how will gay marriage, civil unions, or even just mere tolerance of homosexuality, stop heterosexual people from finding each other, and producing offspring?

269 posted on 07/14/2004 12:52:35 PM PDT by hunter112
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
Without an institution to promote children there is no society for the future.

I keep wondering, how will gay marriage, civil unions, or even just mere tolerance of homosexuality, stop heterosexual people from finding each other, and producing offspring?

270 posted on 07/14/2004 12:52:46 PM PDT by hunter112
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
Kerry advocates spending (giving away) SOCIAL SECURITY MONEY to reward homosexual sex partners.

Kerry advocates allowing homosexuals who are US citizens to be able to put fiance visas for homosexual sex partners.

Kerry advocates FEDERALizing recognisiton of "civil unions".

Kerry is ready to SPEND FEDERAL MONEY to reward homosexuals

Kerry, (along with the few Republicans who voted against the amendment) advocates NAMBLA being legally married so they can legally adopt their very own sex toys. What a nice American family value, aye ?
(Follow the money)

271 posted on 07/14/2004 12:53:40 PM PDT by concerned about politics ( Liberals are still stuck at the bottom of Maslow's Hierarchy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
Individual liberty can only be protected if the common defense is first provided for. The common defense is an aspect of the common good. The common defense and the common good are logically prior to the State's promotion of individual liberty.

The common defense comes firts, but the common defense is BOTH part of the states promotion of individual liberty AND the common good. However, the common good is a much broader concept that includes social directives that cannot logically be considered more important than the State's protection of individual liberty. So why is "the general welfare" mentioned in the Preamble?

The Preamble does not set the Constitutional limits of the federal government. Also, I am not arguing that the general welfare is not a legitimate aim of government. I am just stating that if you consider it more important than protecting individual liberty, you are one of the few.

272 posted on 07/14/2004 12:57:47 PM PDT by Texas Federalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: hunter112

check to stat in sweden to see....


273 posted on 07/14/2004 12:58:18 PM PDT by fooman (Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar

All this tripe about we should'nt tamper with the constitution!SO WHAT!!!It ain't the Bible so don't worry about it.This country is faced with and will be faced with serious problems concerning moral deterioration.I don't care if you ad 100 new amendments,if there is a problem to be addressed then deal with it by any means necessary.


274 posted on 07/14/2004 1:03:15 PM PDT by INSENSITIVE GUY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar

All this tripe about we should'nt tamper with the constitution!SO WHAT!!!It ain't the Bible so don't worry about it.This country is faced with and will be faced with serious problems concerning moral deterioration.I don't care if you ad 100 new amendments,if there is a problem to be addressed then deal with it by any means necessary.


275 posted on 07/14/2004 1:03:23 PM PDT by INSENSITIVE GUY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas Federalist
It boils down to the description of original jurisdiction versus appellate jurisdiction. By the description of the judicial power in Article III, "all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution" must fall within the original jurisdiction of some federal court, either the Supreme Court or a lesser court created by Congress (Congress can decide which, except for a list later in Article III that are specifically reserved to the Supreme Court). Congress can constrain the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and the original and appellate jurisdiction of lesser courts, which would have the effect of making the highest court that did have jurisdiction over a given case the "last word" setting precedents on the matter for its district of jurisdiction.
276 posted on 07/14/2004 1:04:30 PM PDT by steve-b (Panties & Leashes Would Look Good On Spammers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: hunter112
I keep wondering, how will gay marriage, civil unions, or even just mere tolerance of homosexuality, stop heterosexual people from finding each other, and producing offspring?

The problem is the children in the schools will be taught queers are normal. If they're taught queers are normal, so is bestiality, pedophilia, polygamy, S&M, cannibalism, and any other dysfunctional sex fetish. What's considered Constitutional for one type of sex fetish must be Constitutional for them all. Otherwise, it's "Sexual preference discrimination." All fetishes are considered equal. That's the law. They're all choices.
What's the difference between having sex with the same sex, and having sex with a goat? A man having sex with 10 wives? A foot fetishist wanting to have sex and marriage with a womans shoe? Nothing. They're all sex choices. They're all equal, and nothing like man and woman in love bearing a child together and being a loving family. It's like apples and oranges.
Should a woman able to marry a car because she loves doing it with the tale pipe? Should a man be able to marry a tree for it's knot hole?

277 posted on 07/14/2004 1:06:17 PM PDT by concerned about politics ( Liberals are still stuck at the bottom of Maslow's Hierarchy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: Chad Fairbanks
ONLY Kerry and Edwards declined to vote. There is NO headline broadcasting this fact.

Searching Google's news, one headline called it "Bush's Anti-Gay Measure, But..." (the Village Voice) but President Bush cannot introduce such items to the Senate. Some headlines do announce the local vote for a state.

Edwards HAS spoken out on today's vote:

Edwards says Senate vote is a defeat for 'politics of division' (same sex marriage)

278 posted on 07/14/2004 1:06:50 PM PDT by weegee (Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them. ~~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: fooman
Ah, yes, the old trot-out-Scandinavia argument. Sorry, its not fair to compare a pure welfare state that never had to fight for its freedom (within living memory, at least) having a homogenous population; with our society that has different values.

Sure, people procreate before marriage, here as over there, but they do manage to perpetuate the species. Homosexuals who are not interested in having children are not going to turn straight and procreate just because an FMA is on the books.

279 posted on 07/14/2004 1:09:09 PM PDT by hunter112
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: hunter112

tolerance is fine, its what we have now.

but acceptance through a re-definition of marriage, will quickly lead to advocacy. and with that, you will see an even further decline in the already imploding rates of marriage and in-wedlock birth rates.


280 posted on 07/14/2004 1:10:28 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
Individual liberty can only be protected if the common defense is first provided for. The common defense is an aspect of the common good. The common defense and the common good are logically prior to the State's promotion of individual liberty.

Really, at least throw in some words to maintain a pretense that "the common good" isn't just being tossed in as a complete non sequitur.

In any case, it was recognized by the Founders that the common good is not a prerequisite for liberty -- hence the phrase "the pursuit of happiness" rather than simply "happiness". You can fail to catch up to happiness, in which case "the common good" would not be satisfied but you would nevertheless be free.

281 posted on 07/14/2004 1:10:32 PM PDT by steve-b (Panties & Leashes Would Look Good On Spammers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: hunter112
I keep wondering, how will gay marriage, civil unions, or even just mere tolerance of homosexuality, stop heterosexual people from finding each other, and producing offspring?

I keep wondering, how will gay polygamist marriage, civil unions, or even just mere tolerance of homosexuality polygamy, stop heterosexual people from finding each other, and producing offspring?

Do you accept your line of reasoning when it comes to other forms of marriage?

The US policy on marriage can be one of two things: 1) all marriage between consenting participants must be allowed; or 2) only marriage between a man and a woman shall be recognized by the state.

282 posted on 07/14/2004 1:14:27 PM PDT by Gelato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: hunter112

birthrates for western peoples are already imploding. acceptance will lead to increased number of gays through indoctrination in the schools, further depressing formation of families capable of having children. unless you are advocating we setup some programs to match gay married male couples with lesbain couples, so they can "team up" and have kids. maybe you'd like to see a tax credit for that. perhaps not you, but I guarantee you, once we head down this road, the gay groups will petition congress for programs exactly like that.


283 posted on 07/14/2004 1:15:05 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
The problem is the children in the schools will be taught queers are normal.

FMA or no FMA, they're already being taught tolerance. Just like when I was a kid, we were taught to tolerate people of different religious views. When my teacher in 3rd grade tried to get other kids from making slurs against a Jewish boy, was she promoting Judaism?

Sorry, all the slippery slope stuff doesn't wash with me. It certainly hasn't made any difference to the mushy middle. I don't see any more support for goat marriage in 2004 than I saw in 1969. Just because acceptance of adults engaging in consenting behavior with each other has increased in that 35 years did not have any influence on acceptance of bestiality, polygamy, or incest.

284 posted on 07/14/2004 1:15:28 PM PDT by hunter112
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

Not only is the Amendment dead, it was never breathing to begin with. It is at least 19 votes short, and probably 25 votes short in reality, when you consider that (at a minimum) 5 or 6 "yea" voting Senators would be unwilling to be the 67th vote to put it over the top. That kind of swing has never occurred.

Gay marriage in some form has been likely since "Roemer v. Evans" was handed down in 1996 and inevitable since "Lawrence v. Texas" was handed down in 2003.

Justice Stevens has given every indication that he will never retire while a Republican is in office, and he's the only superannuated Justice among the Roemer and Lawrence majority. In any event, Chuck Schumer will filibuster to stop any appointments of Justices who would vote to reverse the trend ... and Republicans are 7 votes away from breaking any filibusters. If Bush were to be re-elected on the Electoral College while losing the popular vote again (an ever-increasing probability, in my opinion), Schumer will probably filibuster any Bush Supreme Court appointee no matter what.


285 posted on 07/14/2004 1:16:12 PM PDT by only1percent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
but acceptance through a re-definition of marriage, will quickly lead to advocacy. and with that, you will see an even further decline in the already imploding rates of marriage and in-wedlock birth rates.

Rather than belittling marriage for the sake of political funding from the fetish groups, why not put all our efforts into strengthening traditional marriage?
The argument is marriage is a flop anyway, but that's due to liberalism.
If we all work toward strengthening heterosexual marriage, then our nation will prosper immensely, and the children will grow up to be strong and mentally stable.
Why add to the moral decline and the spread of deadly diseases? It seems as though people would be begging to save marriage from the weirdos in our society.

286 posted on 07/14/2004 1:17:50 PM PDT by concerned about politics ( Liberals are still stuck at the bottom of Maslow's Hierarchy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: hunter112

tolerance is not acceptance or advocacy. there is a huge difference.


287 posted on 07/14/2004 1:19:03 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
but acceptance through a re-definition of marriage, will quickly lead to advocacy. and with that, you will see an even further decline in the already imploding rates of marriage and in-wedlock birth rates.

Well, for one thing, marriage has been redefined throughout history. It used to be a simple property contract where a man or his family traded property to a woman's family, for permission to marry her. It's evolved to an institution where people of different heritages can marry, childless couples can marry (without social pressure to have kids), and the marital status can be flipped on or off, like a switch, through no-fault divorce. All of this was accomplished without gay rights advocates.

Do you really think that the lack of an FMA constitutes "permission" for people to be homosexual? I remember the days when nobody talked about homosexuality (except to describe it as sin in a religious text), and gays were given near zero tolerance. If that wasn't "lack of permission" what would be? Yet, there were closeted gay people. They've always been in every society, they just get more mention in some than in others.

If you really want to fix heterosexual marriage, and in-wedlock birth rates, why is targeting homosexuals part of the solution?

288 posted on 07/14/2004 1:23:05 PM PDT by hunter112
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics

well said


289 posted on 07/14/2004 1:23:05 PM PDT by fooman (Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: only1percent

you are giving up way to easily. there are plenty of confirmable justice candidates out there who would not be fillibustered, who would vote differently on gay marriage issues then some of the current court members.


290 posted on 07/14/2004 1:24:01 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: hunter112
Sorry, all the slippery slope stuff doesn't wash with me. It certainly hasn't made any difference to the mushy middle. I don't see any more support for goat marriage in 2004 than I saw in 1969. Just because acceptance of adults engaging in consenting behavior with each other has increased in that 35 years did not have any influence on acceptance of bestiality, polygamy, or incest.

So you're saying it's ok for someone to go ahead and marry their car, their goat, or the neighbors dog if they want to? If not, you're a bigot.
Do they , although smaller in number, not have the same right to marry as a homosexual if they're engaging in some kind of kinky sex, and the car/goat/dog do not object??

291 posted on 07/14/2004 1:24:10 PM PDT by concerned about politics ( Liberals are still stuck at the bottom of Maslow's Hierarchy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: hunter112

its valid. It is a whole nexus of things. No marriage makes our values the same and WILL increase the need for welfare as people will have no need to work to keep thier unfamilies together


292 posted on 07/14/2004 1:25:08 PM PDT by fooman (Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: hunter112

who is targeting gays? it is they who are pushing this agenda to target what we now know of as marriage?


293 posted on 07/14/2004 1:25:40 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
The vote was a close 47-50 and your answer is to get rid of the whole party? Wouldn't it be easier to work at defeating the few pubs who voted against it?

That would require having a mature, sincere approach to political success.

294 posted on 07/14/2004 1:26:27 PM PDT by StumpyPete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: hunter112

again, beastiality is legal in sweden. this action is up so much in western europe, some of the afflicted are considering laws against it.


295 posted on 07/14/2004 1:28:10 PM PDT by fooman (Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: hunter112
If you really want to fix heterosexual marriage, and in-wedlock birth rates, why is targeting homosexuals part of the solution?

Why add a dysfunctional sex fetish as a solution? Wouldn't that be teaching the children to go the wrong way? Shouldn't we be reinforcing normal heterosexual behavior to strengthen marriage rather than belittling it and turning it into nothing but a bath house orgy?

296 posted on 07/14/2004 1:29:23 PM PDT by concerned about politics ( Liberals are still stuck at the bottom of Maslow's Hierarchy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar

What almost amuses me is how the media is acting like this was a defeat for the proposed amendment itself. The vote was only for cloture, in order to bring the question to the floor for a vote.

Well, 50 Senators were sufficiently afraid of the question to vote nay on cloture. Fine, says I! Let us continue the debate on the chamber floor. Let those opposed to the historical definition of marriage hold forth on why two persons with the same genitalia should be allowed the benefits of matrimony. Or better yet, why polygamy should remain outlawed. Or why two men and a llama should not enjoy conubial bliss without governmental interference.

But then, the DemocRats are the party that doesn't know what the definition of 'is' is. Or that oral sex is sex. Or the the Constitution is the Founding document, not some 'living, breathing' thing that they can take out to slaughter and skin for their amusement.

Sorry, I ramble on...


297 posted on 07/14/2004 1:29:39 PM PDT by ex 98C MI Dude (Proud Member of the Reagan Republicans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gelato
Do you accept your line of reasoning when it comes to other forms of marriage?

Show me any place in America besides the deserts of Utah and Nevada where women are willing to act as servile idiots for some lazy lump of a man who wants to see how many kids he can father, and I'll agree that polygamy as an "other form of marriage" is a potential problem. Even the "free love" communes of the sixties did not inject polygamy into our society. Liberals don't even practice it, unless you count getting divorced and remarried repeatedly.

The US policy on marriage can be one of two things: 1) all marriage between consenting participants must be allowed...

What about this for a concept: You only have one of yourself to give to another. You are allowed to give that one indivisible self to another who can freely consent to give their one indivisible self to you. There's your logical, practical, and moral argument against polygamy, bestiality, adult-child marriage, and marrying an inanimate object (shoes were mentioned earlier).

298 posted on 07/14/2004 1:31:06 PM PDT by hunter112
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts

Oops. Correction: Nelson (NE) voted Yea, so he's OK.


299 posted on 07/14/2004 1:32:27 PM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: hunter112

What about Monica and Clinton's other serville women, like hillary.


300 posted on 07/14/2004 1:33:12 PM PDT by fooman (Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 298 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 501-526 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