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 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 521-526 next last
To: 11th Earl of Mar
"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?"

What demogoguery!! If that was the case ban marriages and jail Brittney Spear.

241 posted on 07/14/2004 12:10:45 PM PDT by Destro (Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorism by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kdot

1040 --You better beleive it. It means ALL of our taxes just went up.


242 posted on 07/14/2004 12:13:59 PM PDT by fooman (Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: RicocheT
The following Republicans voted against cloture for FMA: Campbell (R,CO) Chafee(R, RI) Collins (R, ME) McCain (R, AZ) Snowe (R, ME) Sununu (R, NH)

By the way, good for Miller and Byrd who voted YEA.

243 posted on 07/14/2004 12:15:53 PM PDT by YepYep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: Texas Federalist
Again, we're back to the same basic mistake. Congress can remove all jurisdiction from a particular lower court, or remove appellate jurisdiction from the Supreme court, but any case arising under the federal Constitution will nevertheless get into the federal court system somewhere (see the description of the power of the federal judiciary at the beginning of Article III).

Really, if it were as easy as some people think, the left would have long ago passed a law saying 1)hand in your guns and 2)the courts can't do anything about it.

244 posted on 07/14/2004 12:17:10 PM PDT by steve-b (Panties & Leashes Would Look Good On Spammers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat

They did take a stand, they ignored it.


245 posted on 07/14/2004 12:17:31 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
Er, you do know that Article I, Section 8, not the Preamble, contains the list of legislative powers available to the federal government, right?
246 posted on 07/14/2004 12:18:46 PM PDT by steve-b (Panties & Leashes Would Look Good On Spammers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts

Yes, Lincoln in Arkansas is up for reelection. Her vote today should be a huge boost for Jim Holt (R), who is conservative and is running against her.


247 posted on 07/14/2004 12:18:51 PM PDT by YepYep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar

When are you Republicans going to realize that the GOP isn't conservative? geeze! Some of you people are pathetic! Just wagging your tail and following obediantly to the voting booth and voting for the same old lying weasels every four years who claim to be conservative but are nothing but spineless power-hungry money-takers. And NOW the GOP is noble and support your agenda since they ALMOST passed the amendment! HA! HA! "They'll take it on the campaign". Yeah. "We WOULD'DA dun it if not for those waskally liberals!" The GOP and the Dems are in bed together and they are LAUGHING at you right now!


248 posted on 07/14/2004 12:21:06 PM PDT by Merdoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar

don't we just love divided government


249 posted on 07/14/2004 12:21:46 PM PDT by freddiedavis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Merdoug

I take back my previous post. I'm sorry for posting it. I will keep my mouth shut. Sometimes I just can't help it. I apologize if I offended anyone here.


250 posted on 07/14/2004 12:22:31 PM PDT by Merdoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 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