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 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 501-526 next last

Most Americans really don't care much about this issue.

It only directly affects those who are gay. I doubt the constitution will ever be changed for this purpose. Nor should it IMO.


101 posted on 07/14/2004 10:25:42 AM PDT by mcmac22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
"The issue is not ripe..." said Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut.

No, but you are, Senator. Overripe, in fact.

102 posted on 07/14/2004 10:25:52 AM PDT by snopercod (I remember when Gallo Red Mountain wine was $1.59 a gallon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmericanInTokyo

The 52 Senators do NOT represent majority opinion on this subject. It bears repeating the elected representatives of the people can sometimes vote opposite to their desires. I do know for a fact if this measure were brought to a nationwide vote of the people, it would pass in a heartbeat. In a way I am pleased the N0-SHOWS (we know who they are) were just too cowardly to tell us where they stood on the most important issue of our time.


103 posted on 07/14/2004 10:25:53 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: oceanview

To my recollection, Hagel voted yes, McCain no.


104 posted on 07/14/2004 10:26:15 AM PDT by maxter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
Didn't say you broke a forum rule, I said you should familiarize yourself with them before accusing the forum of banning those with dissenting opinions.

On the other hand, you personally attacked me.

ROTFLMAO!!

105 posted on 07/14/2004 10:26:25 AM PDT by Coop (In memory of a true hero- Pat Tillman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: King Black Robe

BARF ALERT

Oh well, we had some nasty losses before we got to the Battle of Midway.

Eagles still up.

106 posted on 07/14/2004 10:27:15 AM PDT by AmericanInTokyo (***Since The Iraq War & Transition Period Began, NORTH KOREA HAS MANUFACTURED (8) NUCLEAR WEAPONS***)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Kahonek
Actually, I guess it was Edwards who spoke and didn't stay. Kerry didn't show up at all, so neither of them voted.

Disgusting. These two are beneath contempt.

107 posted on 07/14/2004 10:27:20 AM PDT by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
We couldn't even knock out Specter without the powers that be getting involved and stopping us.

IIRC, that was due to Rove's machinations on behalf of W's re-election, W's sense of loyalty to Specter, and the re-registration of union members solely to interfere in the pubbie primary. That was quite a convergence, and it's no reason to give up in dispair. The last enduring, successful third party resulted from a momentous issue about 150 years ago.

108 posted on 07/14/2004 10:27:27 AM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: johnmorris886

Congress cannot remove "federal" appellate jurisdiction. It can only constrain the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (which would have the effect of making the circuit court the "court of last resort" setting the binding precedents for each district).


109 posted on 07/14/2004 10:29:32 AM PDT by steve-b (Panties & Leashes Would Look Good On Spammers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: mcmac22

You're wrong. We are all born into the family. Its fate affects all of us regardless of whether we never marry and for those of us who do, it affects the health of our relationships and the welfare of our children. When the American people have the opportunity to affirm marriage, they have done so over the opposition or ignorance of our elites. The Senate may be closely divided on this issue but the vast majority of the American people know we need to preserve and strengthen it for posterity.


110 posted on 07/14/2004 10:30:07 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: rhombus

how are you going to keep it out of the public schools? once gay marriage is as legal as the marriages we have today, how are you going to stop gay activitists and the courts from forcing public schools to adopt this as part of the curriculum? can you imagine taking young children, who have not formed their own sense of reality on this topic due to their age and maturity level - from being taught that Eddie marrying Bobby is the same as Eddie marrying Susie?


111 posted on 07/14/2004 10:30:22 AM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
Tooo many women of wealsley.

Make that "womyn."

112 posted on 07/14/2004 10:30:24 AM PDT by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: oceanview

It is already too late. My 24 y/o staunchly Republican, Bush supporting, Rep. precinct chairperson niece and her 22 y/o staunchly Republican, poll working brother proclaimed to the whole family on Thanksgiving that they could care less if two guys or two women get married.


113 posted on 07/14/2004 10:31:20 AM PDT by redangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: oceanview; nickcarraway

"its 65%."

That certainly sounds closer to what I've seen in the polls.


114 posted on 07/14/2004 10:32:30 AM PDT by Kahonek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar

Scuttle is a bad turn of words, it can be brought up again.

Particularly with a SENATOR DITAKA!


115 posted on 07/14/2004 10:32:38 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lunatic Fringe
The Supreme Court amends the Constitution virtually every time it sits. Yet the liberals now claim that it is a sacrosanct document that must not be amended except with the greatest care. The hypocrisy is stomach turning.
116 posted on 07/14/2004 10:32:56 AM PDT by Malesherbes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: rhombus
Well, your question
I don't see what marriage has to do with the Gov't and/or the Constitution.
can be interpreted in (at least) two ways:

Why is government involved in marriage in the first place?

Why does it matter how marriage is defined from the standpoint of the government and/or Constitution?

I was addressing the second, mostly because now that the benefits are in place making marriage a legal definition and a key to benefits, the historical reasons for the first are rendered largely moot. In other words, even marriage were relegated to religious institutions, or left up to the individual, the fact that federal, state, local and government-regulated private benefits all exist based on that status means that (one of the) the core objection(s) remains.
117 posted on 07/14/2004 10:33:18 AM PDT by babyface00
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Well, I am worried the approach is " we tried, but it's impossible given the numbers.'' The longer Republicans fumble, the more the public will come to believe it's something they have to accept, whether the like it personally or not. That's the way it works.


118 posted on 07/14/2004 10:33:18 AM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
Again, this bears repeated.

SOMEBODY CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG HERE....

that....

THE TWO NO-SHOW SENATE VOTES JUST NOW ON THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE WERE....****KERRY AND EDWARDS**** (???)

119 posted on 07/14/2004 10:33:26 AM PDT by AmericanInTokyo (***Since The Iraq War & Transition Period Began, NORTH KOREA HAS MANUFACTURED (8) NUCLEAR WEAPONS***)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Kahonek
Actually, I guess it was Edwards who spoke and didn't stay. Kerry didn't show up at all, so neither of them voted. That was why it was 48-50, rather than 48-52.

He showed up and didn't vote?????

120 posted on 07/14/2004 10:34:47 AM PDT by Mo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: redangus

People haven't seen the Left's in your face tactics yet. These people in the gay lobby won't be content with leaving things alone. As I've said before, they will overreach and it will be back on the floor of Congress.


121 posted on 07/14/2004 10:34:50 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: maxter; oceanview

Collins, Snowe, McCain and Hagel were the Republicans that voted against.



122 posted on 07/14/2004 10:36:28 AM PDT by RottiBiz (Help end Freepathons -- become a Monthly Donor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: redangus

well sure, if the issue is framed only in the context of what adults do in private - then the balance shifts.

but as we all know, that is not the true agenda here for the gay activists. they don't just want tolerance, they want acceptance. and those are two totally different things. acceptance will turn the public schools into recruitment zones for homosexuality. confront your relatives with that reality.


123 posted on 07/14/2004 10:36:41 AM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: JustAnAmerican

You are very correct.

We need more "R" in office to make the Snows and Specters very disposable.

With a filibuster proof majority, the RINO's have less power. (they may even jump ship ala jeffords)


124 posted on 07/14/2004 10:36:43 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

My friend, did the civil rights movement give up in the face of bad tidings? No, they regrouped to fight on. The marriage movement in this country is just getting started. And if the anti-family folks continue to assault the institution of marriage in this country, they will awaken a sleeping giant.


125 posted on 07/14/2004 10:37:08 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
how are you going to keep it out of the public schools? once gay marriage is as legal as the marriages we have today, how are you going to stop gay activitists and the courts from forcing public schools to adopt this as part of the curriculum? can you imagine taking young children, who have not formed their own sense of reality on this topic due to their age and maturity level - from being taught that Eddie marrying Bobby is the same as Eddie marrying Susie?

How does one keep anything out of the public schools? Pick any issue... Drug abuse, project DARE. Overeating, purging and dieting programs. Media bias, NY Times case studies. Racism, diversity programs. Local action, local control. States should provide competency testing for reading, writing and arithmetic so schools don't have time for nonsense. The problem is activist judges and the Constitution, gay marriage is just the latest issue.

126 posted on 07/14/2004 10:37:52 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

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

I totally agree. Its mean-spirited, doomed to fail from the start, and honestly, there's more to being a conservative than keeping gay people from marrying. Also, its another thing "out there" which is keeping the country divided. Along with racism, classism and sexism. Legislation like this (the FMA) does nothing more than throw fire on issues that are already quite volatile.
Of course, this doesn't give anyone license to marry gays illegally, where it is against state law.
127 posted on 07/14/2004 10:39:07 AM PDT by mudblood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

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

The first principle of the State is to promote the common good. Since all members of society pass through the institution of the family, the State has a duty to promote the health of families and marriage.

128 posted on 07/14/2004 10:39:36 AM PDT by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Mo1

"He showed up and didn't vote?????"

That's what I understand. A FoxNews.com story on the subject said that:

"Edwards was the guest speaker at the House Democrat's weekly caucus Wednesday but didn't stay for the vote."


129 posted on 07/14/2004 10:39:50 AM PDT by Kahonek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Malesherbes

Of course. But what struck me was that Republicans let them take the easy way out. If they had to vote on the language of the amendment directly, I wonder how many of the 52 would still have had the courage to vote NO? I think if brought to a direct vote, it would get 67 votes and possibly more. No Senator wants to be on record as being against marriage. Which is as American as apple pie. So I am confident about the future.


130 posted on 07/14/2004 10:40:07 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar

Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Nay
Bayh (D-IN), Nay
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Breaux (D-LA), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Campbell (R-CO), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Chafee (R-RI), Nay
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Nay
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Corzine (D-NJ), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Nay
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Nay
Dole (R-NC), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Edwards (D-NC), Not Voting
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Nay
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Nay
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Jeffords (I-VT), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Nay
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Not Voting
Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Nay
Lincoln (D-AR), Nay

Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Nay
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Nay
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Nay
Talent (R-MO), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Nay


131 posted on 07/14/2004 10:40:30 AM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhombus

I don't see how the other issues you list apply. schools don't advocate drug use or overeating.

even in NYC, the most liberal public schools around, gay textbooks were beaten back a few years ago. once gay marriage is legal, there will be no basis for stopping it anywhere.


132 posted on 07/14/2004 10:40:36 AM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: mcmac22
Most Americans really don't care much about this issue.

If you're right (and I don't believe you are), the solution to that problem is to have leadership speak up and warn the public on the importance of this issue. We have a president who can, but too many weak Senators.

If homosexual marriage is allowed, there is no rational basis on which to outlaw polygamy, incestuous marriage, and child marriage. There are individuals who want these kinds of marriage, and they will get what they want, once marriage is no longer defined as between one man and one woman.

133 posted on 07/14/2004 10:40:47 AM PDT by Gelato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: RottiBiz

Don't forget Nighthorse Campbell from CO as well.


134 posted on 07/14/2004 10:41:59 AM PDT by CSM43 (President Reagan freed the slaves of communism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

R's voting against cloture were Campbell (CO), Collins (ME), Chafee (RI), McCain (AZ), Snowe (ME), and Sununu (NH). D's voting for cloture were Ben Nelson (NE), Byrd (WV), and Miller (GA).


135 posted on 07/14/2004 10:42:54 AM PDT by mdwakeup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: mudblood

It is conservative to preserve tradition and central to tradition is keeping the "little platoons" that make society run intact. It has nothing to do with keeping gays from living as they want. If all gays wanted was to live together that would be one thing. In truth, they are opposed to marriage since its a reminder a lifestyle built around hedonistic pleasure cannot long perpetuate the survival of civilization.


136 posted on 07/14/2004 10:43:27 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts

Republicans voting Nay:

Campbell (CO)
Chafee (RI)
Collins (ME)
McCain (AZ)
Snowe (ME)
Sununu (NH)

Specter voted Yea!


137 posted on 07/14/2004 10:43:32 AM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: babyface00
Why does it matter how marriage is defined from the standpoint of the government and/or Constitution? I was addressing the second, mostly because now that the benefits are in place making marriage a legal definition and a key to benefits, the historical reasons for the first are rendered largely moot. In other words, even marriage were relegated to religious institutions, or left up to the individual, the fact that federal, state, local and government-regulated private benefits all exist based on that status means that (one of the) the core objection(s) remains.

Understood. I do agree that marriage is now dead. How can one now legally restrict marriage to only two people? How can one prevent marriage within families to take advantage of inheritence laws and avoid taxes? I know, just get a judge somewhere to agree. Ah welcome to the era of trial lawyers.

138 posted on 07/14/2004 10:43:38 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Kahonek; OXENinFLA; StriperSniper; Howlin
That's what I understand. A FoxNews.com story on the subject said that:

"Edwards was the guest speaker at the House Democrat's weekly caucus Wednesday but didn't stay for the vote."

Thanks for the info Kahonek

Yooo y'all .. Edwards was in DC and never voted ...

Looks like he's afraid of going to record too

139 posted on 07/14/2004 10:43:57 AM PDT by Mo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar

That's more than I expected.


140 posted on 07/14/2004 10:44:22 AM PDT by rwfromkansas ("Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?" -- Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Baseballguy
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?

Because the primary duty of the State is to promote the common good. You can claim that these things don't serve to promote the common good if you want. I don't have any objection to either in principle.

141 posted on 07/14/2004 10:44:26 AM PDT by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Pardon me for asking, but is there any chance one of you could get the roll call vote, and the other write out the particulars so that others can do it next time? I've gone to "Thomas" before, but I just wind up getting frustrated trying to get roll call votes.

Senate votes are at http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_108_2.htm

House votes are at href=http://clerk.house.gov/legisAct/votes.html

Here's the Senate vote for this one. (Note the two Johns were the only senators not voting)

YEAs ---48
Alexander (R-TN) Allard (R-CO) Allen (R-VA) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burns (R-MT) Byrd (D-WV) Chambliss (R-GA) Cochran (R-MS) Coleman (R-MN) Cornyn (R-TX) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) DeWine (R-OH) Dole (R-NC) Domenici (R-NM) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Fitzgerald (R-IL) Frist (R-TN) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Kyl (R-AZ) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) McConnell (R-KY) Miller (D-GA) Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-NE) Nickles (R-OK) Roberts (R-KS) Santorum (R-PA) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-OR) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Talent (R-MO) Thomas (R-WY) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA)

NAYs ---50
Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Breaux (D-LA) Campbell (R-CO) Cantwell (D-WA) Carper (D-DE) Chafee (R-RI) Clinton (D-NY) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Corzine (D-NJ) Daschle (D-SD) Dayton (D-MN) Dodd (D-CT) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Graham (D-FL) Harkin (D-IA) Hollings (D-SC) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Johnson (D-SD) Kennedy (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Landrieu (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (D-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) McCain (R-AZ) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sarbanes (D-MD) Schumer (D-NY) Snowe (R-ME) Stabenow (D-MI) Sununu (R-NH) Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 2
Edwards (D-NC) Kerry (D-MA)

142 posted on 07/14/2004 10:46:09 AM PDT by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: oceanview

After 16 years of public school education I doubt if that would make much difference to them. Most young people have drank the Kool-Aid of the NEA/homosexual agenda they have been fed since kindergarten. They are both solidly, economic conservative heterosexuals, but when it comes to homosexuality they just see it as a 'not my business what they do' issue. And I don't think they are in the minority in their age group. I told my wife if the homosexuals would just sit back and wait a few years they would get everything they want without a fight. Their problem is they are totally into immediate gratification, as in I want it NOW. And sadly with the help of activist judges and the USSC they are getting it now.


143 posted on 07/14/2004 10:46:11 AM PDT by redangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

On an up-or-down vote on the amendment, R's would probably have lost Smith, Specter, DeWine, Allen, Warner, Hagel, Stevens, and maybe more.


144 posted on 07/14/2004 10:46:30 AM PDT by mdwakeup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
"the primary duty of the State is to promote the common good. "

Only justification for the State is to protect rights. The common good is an empty concept altogether.

145 posted on 07/14/2004 10:47:16 AM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
I don't see how the other issues you list apply. schools don't advocate drug use or overeating.

No they don't. On the contrary they advocate against such things and expend tax dollars to say it's bad. They are teaching something that is probably best left to parents. Nonetheless it is "in the public" schools.

146 posted on 07/14/2004 10:48:00 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Gelato

We have many weak Senators but look at how many took a stand. They could have run for the tall grass on this. Look at this from the long-term view, my friends. This was but one skirmish in the fight about what America is going to be. The other side can only force America to accept gay marriage not through the democratic process but though judges imposing it against the wishes of the people. When they do that they will win the battle but lose the war. So far its looking a lot better from this observer's perspective than the media has led us to believe.


147 posted on 07/14/2004 10:48:07 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: King Black Robe
Good news for the CONSTITUTION!

No, good news for our black robed rulers

AMEN......the black robed lawless judges will continue to " rule AGAINST" the Constitution!!!!!

148 posted on 07/14/2004 10:48:36 AM PDT by pollywog (Psalm 121;1 I Lift mine eyes to the hills from whence cometh my help.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: mdwakeup

Nope. Sen. Smith (one of my senators) is on board. He spoke in favor on the Senate floor the other day.


149 posted on 07/14/2004 10:48:52 AM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
"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."

We should all remember these words. When homosexual marriage comes to South Dakota (if the USSC makes it a Consitutional right), then we ought to all remember that these words came from an alleged leader who is supposed to have vision.

150 posted on 07/14/2004 10:48:53 AM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 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