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]

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 521-526 next last
To: nickcarraway

We didn't get a majority. But we showed surprising strength on the issue the Left and the media consider controversial. The majority of the Senate did NOT reflect the true sentiment of the country. This debate is by no means over. We simply live to fight another day and since the Left is arrogant, they will ultimately do something stupid. Which is what I am expecting down the road.


81 posted on 07/14/2004 10:18:32 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: BibChr
RINO WATCH

By my count and from what I heard, McCAIN, SNOWE and COLLINS were in that sellout, libertine crowd of GOP votes to shut off debate on the F.M.A. I can't think of the other ones right now. But they'll surface. And when they do........

82 posted on 07/14/2004 10:18:44 AM PDT by AmericanInTokyo (***Since The Iraq War & Transition Period Began, NORTH KOREA HAS MANUFACTURED (8) NUCLEAR WEAPONS***)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: rhombus
I don't see what marriage has to do with the Gov't and/or the Constitution.

Two words: Government Benefits.

That is the heart of the debate, especially since benefits are paid with tax dollars, which means those who disagree with gay marriage will nevertheless be forced to support it by their taxes.

No one really cares what two gay people want to do to each other, or what they want to call their relationship, as long as we aren't forced to subsidize it.
83 posted on 07/14/2004 10:19:06 AM PDT by babyface00
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: PISANO
I understand. This vote was a no go from the start as every dem would line up against it. My point was the GOP held it's entire body together on this vote, with the exception of a couple perennial line jumpers.

Calls to replace the party ring hollow and sound like the same garbage the 3rd parties trot out every time the GOP loses a vote.

My suggestion to these people is to spend your energies educating conservatives on what your parties stand for instead of the crocodile tears you shed and baton you wield bashing the GOP over the head. You're not making many converts that way.

But hey, if you'd rather rant and scream than do something effective, knock yourself out.
84 posted on 07/14/2004 10:19:28 AM PDT by Bob J (Rightalk.com...coming soon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
People aren't convinced it's the right remedy. Even Kerry opposes gay marriage, he just opposes amending the Constitution when it's not obvious that such a thing is absolutely necessary.

Great. That's typical of a response by a group that want NOTHING TO HAPPEN. With thinking as such there would never have been a Roe v Wade. Today is this issue. Next week will be another & the true conservatives will be ousted by 4 other pubbies with another BS excuse. But they know that if they bucked under then the elites will shread them but you voters will vote for them next time. Then you can wallow in more PC lib crapola votes from the next wave of so-called conservatives.

85 posted on 07/14/2004 10:19:44 AM PDT by Digger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Kahonek

I didn't say the GOP were at 75%-80% in the polls. I said they can't even win on an issue that 75%-80% agree with their position. Even here in California the numbers are like that. If they have to run away from issues that are in their favor, where are they going to win?


86 posted on 07/14/2004 10:20:10 AM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: StoneColdGOP

It was one original Amendment. But many wanted a tougher ban.


87 posted on 07/14/2004 10:20:23 AM PDT by King Black Robe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
"It's prohibited by South Dakota law as it is now in 38 other states.

The exact same way it's prohibited in California, right? So what were those licenses they gave out in San Fran? And who's been charged with breaking that law? Oh, that would be NO ONE.

88 posted on 07/14/2004 10:20:39 AM PDT by nina0113
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar

I imagine some of the RINOs actually voted for this and were going to vote against it in the final vote.


89 posted on 07/14/2004 10:20:43 AM PDT by neutrality
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
" This is one of the stupidest amendments ever proposed."

The amend defines marriage. Usually simple definitions of words used in fed law are placed in the US Code. The only way to prevent some perverted leftist from tossing out the definition and replacing it with an all inclusive rainbow def, is to palce it right in the Constitution where it belongs. That way marriage retains it's traditional meaning of a mutually agreed to contract between one man and one woman.

90 posted on 07/14/2004 10:21:01 AM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Lunatic Fringe

If this is not a Constitution issue, then there are many state issues that need to be considered.

Why should I have to pay federal gas taxes for road that I will never drive? Why should I have federal taxes taken out of my paycheck for services I will never render?


91 posted on 07/14/2004 10:21:11 AM PDT by Baseballguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Coop
OK...you tell me, what forum rule did I break?

On the other hand, you personally attacked me.

Perhaps it's you that needs to review the forum rules.

92 posted on 07/14/2004 10:21:15 AM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: BibChr
But that didn't stop a rogue mayor.

Not to mention all of the rogue judges.

93 posted on 07/14/2004 10:21:51 AM PDT by 11th Earl of Mar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Digger
Let's see what the President will say (if possible) later this day.

They are certainly uncorking the champagne bottles in Castro District of S.F., West Hollywood and Greenwich Village right about this time

(and those corks...and gerbils for that matter, might come in mighty handy later)....

94 posted on 07/14/2004 10:22:37 AM PDT by AmericanInTokyo (***Since The Iraq War & Transition Period Began, NORTH KOREA HAS MANUFACTURED (8) NUCLEAR WEAPONS***)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative

what other remedy is possible? the SCOTUS likely has 6 votes to toss the federal DOMA. What's left?

People like Kerry who say they "oppose" gay marriage know exactly what the plan is to ram this down people's throats using the courts. They are in favor of simply letting that plan go forward; the end result is the same. Its a dishonest position to take.


95 posted on 07/14/2004 10:23:05 AM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
This is one of the stupidest amendments ever proposed.

I agree. Look how it turned out the last time an amendment was passed to control people's behavior.

Today, when a concerned effort is made to obliterate this point, it cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals - that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government - that it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizens's protection against the government.
--Ayn Rand, "The Nature of Government", 1964

96 posted on 07/14/2004 10:24:03 AM PDT by snopercod (I remember when Gallo Red Mountain wine was $1.59 a gallon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: babyface00

I quite understand about Gov't benefits and I do collect them myself (as a married taxpayer). Since I chose to pay fewer taxes does not mean I approve of Gov't involvment in marriage. Nonetheless, I believe the real reason that Gov't is in the marriage business was to protect children and to encourage their care by giving breaks to families and thus encourage that lifestyle.


97 posted on 07/14/2004 10:24:03 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Kahonek

its 65%.


98 posted on 07/14/2004 10:24:31 AM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
"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.

The judges, as they have for decades. They use the Constitution as toilet paper.

99 posted on 07/14/2004 10:24:38 AM PDT by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla

Get in touch with the New York State Conservative Party to see how they got started. Our Republican Party here is the most RINO of all, and the leadership now has the party completely locked up, with no room for dissent. That could happen everywhere if people let it.


100 posted on 07/14/2004 10:25:25 AM PDT by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 521-526 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