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 1-50 ... 351-400401-450451-500501-526 last
I'm surprised Specter voted yea.

ff

501 posted on 07/15/2004 9:08:55 PM PDT by foreverfree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: mudblood
Thanks for your comments

The US constitution is based on judeo-christian ideals, and french philosophy.

Well, you're half right (the first half). I suggest you read the works of James Madison on the same; also On Revolution, by Hannah Arendt. Who are you talking about, JJ Rousseau? No. And as for Deists, there may have been about a couple notable ones in the mix, and not the Adams cousins, Jefferson, Washington, or Henry. (And certainly neither were Sidney, nor Locke, who were cited by Adams and Jefferson as providing the basis for the founding of the USA.)

There's a reason why the founding fathers wrote the Constitution, rather than simply holding up the Bible as our country's highest legal document: the Constitution is for everyone and CAN BE CHANGED.

The Constitution was held up as our highest legal document, because the Constitution lays out our governance, whereas the Bible is (and was regarded as) documentation of a higher, universal, and all saturating truth.

As you've pointed out, the Constitution proscribes ways of its being changed: i.e., by processes such as that begun with yesterday's vote -- not by judges elevating themselves to be the Ruling Tribunal of America.

Once its in [T]he [Bible, it stays there, is immutable, etc. The Constitution can be amended as it becomes necessary. This last attempt at that simply didn't pass the muster.

Really? I saw a muster --well, for everyone but Kerry and Edwards. mb: at the signing of the Constitution, some rights, responsibilities, and standards were enumerated while others were regarded as self-evident and treated as implicit. One of these, clearly, was the meaning of "marriage" as being a sacred commitment between one man and one woman. You're right. That is immutable, in the Bible of those who signed the Constitution, "in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven."

502 posted on 07/15/2004 10:00:00 PM PDT by unspun (Posting thru spellcheck eliminates extra white space. | I'm not "Unspun with AnnaZ" but I appreciate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 486 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
As I noted earlier, the protection of liberties is the higher principle, because it is a prerequisite for creating the environment in which society can pursue its own good through its legitimate powers (example and persuasion).

The final end of the State isn't the "protection of liberties," but the common good, since the protection of liberties is justified as being good for the individuals in society.

Your position is self-contradictory and incoherent, but I give up on trying to convince you of that fact.

moralistic statists who seek to guarantee it equitable outcome.

The State, then, exists to help man to temporal happiness the Church, to eternal. Of these two purposes the latter is more ultimate, man's greater good, while the former is not necessary for the acquisition of the latter. The dominating proximate purpose of man must be to earn his title to eternal salvation: for that, if needs be, he must rationally sacrifice his temporal happiness.

State and Church

Does that sound like "guaranteeing equitable outcome"?

503 posted on 07/16/2004 4:41:06 AM PDT by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 490 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
This exact argument (that "you don't have rights if your're dead") is advanced by gun-grabbers all the time.

So dead people can exercise their rights?

The principle is correct, the application of the principle by the "gun-grabbers" is incorrect.

504 posted on 07/16/2004 4:42:51 AM PDT by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 489 | View Replies]

To: SendShaqtoIraq
The people elect the state representatives. The state representatives are more responsive to the people. They are local and respond to the people of their districts, unlike the present day Senators who think they are of royal blood and do not give a crap about what the people think. The people need to regain control of the selection of their Senators as it was before February 3, 1913 when the XVII amendment was ratified. So for 134 years Senators were selected by the representatives of the State from which they came - Article I, section 3 of the Constitution of the United States.
505 posted on 07/16/2004 5:20:14 AM PDT by YOUGOTIT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 499 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar

"Two no shows, care to guess who"

Why show up for a vote if you already know its a done deal?


506 posted on 07/16/2004 7:15:17 AM PDT by Kerberos (Convictions are more dangerous enemies of the truth than lies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: unspun
"Thanks for your comments..."

You are welcome: likewise.

French Philosophy as in, a government run by the people, for the people, etc. No aristocracy. You can't deny that this didn't come out of the French Revolution. Perhaps not exactly "philosophy" as in "existentialism" or whatever, but it was French nonetheless.

Passing muster: by that I meant that enough legislators didn't agree with it to bring it to a vote. It didn't pass muster ENOUGH - else the vote would be going to the states. Personally, I'm beginning to think that it should have passed muster enough to go to the states, where it could be voted on and decided once and for all.


The Bible: look, there's a lot of good in the Bible, and I have a lot of respect for Christians, but there's a lot of people in the country, a lot of non-christians, a lot of different KINDS of Christians, and if we all want to get along we need to learn how to agree to disagree - as a nation. Ramming our personal beliefs down each other's throats by force of law is bad when liberals do it and just as bad when conservatives do it. That's all I'm saying about that.

Great conversation! :)
507 posted on 07/16/2004 8:22:34 AM PDT by mudblood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 502 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
Does that sound like "guaranteeing equitable outcome"?

Yes -- that is precisely a statement that the outcome of moralists (people behave in accordance to the moralists' preferences, by force if necessary) is to be guaranteed.

However, all they may legitimately seek is opportunity (the state protects their right to live as they wish, and to communicate their arguments in favor of imitation by others).

508 posted on 07/16/2004 9:59:17 AM PDT by steve-b (Panties & Leashes Would Look Good On Spammers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 503 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
application of the principle by the "gun-grabbers" is incorrect

Since you are applying the principle in exactly the same manner (i.e. both you and the gun-grabbers wish to constrain people's property rights on the grounds that it will allegedly prevent various indirect effects that supposedly get people killed), that's a pretty damning admission.

509 posted on 07/16/2004 10:01:13 AM PDT by steve-b (Panties & Leashes Would Look Good On Spammers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 504 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
Implicit in the statement that the first principle of the State is preservation of individual liberties is that this represents the good for society.

Not at all. It is perfectly possible that society would be better off under some benevolent dictator, but that is nevertheless rejected as unacceptable.

510 posted on 07/16/2004 10:03:59 AM PDT by steve-b (Panties & Leashes Would Look Good On Spammers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 485 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
It is perfectly possible that society would be better off under some benevolent dictator, but that is nevertheless rejected as unacceptable.

Rejected as unacceptable by who? Why should this be rejected as "unacceptable"? This form of government could only be "unacceptable" if was not in the best interest of the society, which brings us back to the common good again.

What you're really saying is that a dictatorship could serve the common good, but since it is not a representative form of government, it would not be serving the common good as well as a representative form of government would.

511 posted on 07/16/2004 12:12:01 PM PDT by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 510 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
I don't know why I continue to pursue this, but let me try this another way.

Let's say that we realize your libertarian utopia where everyone agrees not to "initiate force against others," in the sense that you mean.

What then?

.

.

.

.

.

Is that all there is?

Do we then all revel in drugs, pornography and prostitution and pat ourselves on the back for a job well done?

512 posted on 07/16/2004 12:23:35 PM PDT by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 509 | View Replies]

To: YOUGOTIT

"The state representatives are more responsive to the people. They are local and respond to the people of their districts,"

Not in Indiana they don't. they are building an interstate in southern indiana that the majority don't want(I do, but I'm in the minority)

They do whatever will line their pockets best, just like the US Congress


513 posted on 07/16/2004 8:04:50 PM PDT by SendShaqtoIraq (,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 505 | View Replies]

To: SendShaqtoIraq
Interstate highways are usually funded and directed by the federal government and the money is appropriated by the US Congress. However, if you get to know your local state representative you might be surprised how receptive they are for input. As far as a new interstate highway is concerned most of the babble is by the left-wing radical environmentalist and just seems like it is the majority. Besides this country was not based on the majority we are a representative Republic not a democracy.
514 posted on 07/17/2004 2:47:51 PM PDT by YOUGOTIT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 513 | View Replies]

To: YOUGOTIT

"Besides this country was not based on the majority we are a representative Republic not a democracy."

So if the state representatives aren't doing what the majority of their constituents want, how ARE they representing us?

"However, if you get to know your local state representative you might be surprised how receptive they are for input."

As I said, they are IGNORING the input they are getting and doing just as THEY want.


515 posted on 07/17/2004 6:12:44 PM PDT by SendShaqtoIraq (,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 514 | View Replies]

To: mudblood
mb:

About the political philosophy at the root of America's founding, have a look at: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/938320/posts

This political philosophy comes from Christians, as formulated chiefly by Britons. The Founding Fathers established a federal government that was "secular" in that it manifestly does not enact Church behavior, nor is it under the rule of any established church. That is not to be confused with the fact of our nation being founded upon the beliefs and principles of Christians. (Among these beliefs are the rights of individual freedom of belief and general expression, since Christ allows these freedoms in this world and age.)

Our President said all this in shorthand, when asked which was his favorite "political philosopher." ;-`
516 posted on 07/18/2004 1:23:02 AM PDT by unspun (RU working your precinct & assocs. for conservatives? | Not "Unspun with AnnaZ" but I appreciate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 507 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
I don't know why I continue to pursue this

I don't know why dogs chase cars, either -- it's not as if a dog would be able to drive if he caught one.

Let's say that we realize your libertarian utopia where everyone agrees not to "initiate force against others," in the sense that you mean. What then? Is that all there is?

At that point, people would presumably turn their attentions to problems other than the (now solved, given that stipulation) getting the government back on its leash.

517 posted on 07/19/2004 5:05:06 AM PDT by steve-b (Panties & Leashes Would Look Good On Spammers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 512 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
This form of government could only be "unacceptable" if was not in the best interest of the society

Not at all. For example, there are plenty of adults who would probably be better off if they let their parents continue to make all their important decisions, and yet that is properly rejected as unacceptable.

I'm surprised that I'm called upon to state here, of all places, that for a society to be fat, dumb, and happy (i.e. to have its "best interest" taken care of), but without freedom, is an unacceptable state of affairs. Next, I daresay, I'll have to break the news that Bill Clinton was less than entirely honest with the American people.

518 posted on 07/19/2004 5:09:59 AM PDT by steve-b (Panties & Leashes Would Look Good On Spammers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 511 | View Replies]

To: Lunatic Fringe

Are you either pro-gay or homosexual?


519 posted on 07/19/2004 5:31:24 AM PDT by Happy2BMe (Ronald Reagan to Islamic Terrorism: YOU CAN RUN - BUT YOU CAN'T HIDE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar; little jeremiah; *Homosexual Agenda; MeekOneGOP; Barnacle; PhilDragoo; ...
Ho-Hum Help Has Homosexuals Having Hayday - ping.

_________________________________

Senate Scuttles Gay Marriage Amendment (Two no-shows. Care to guess?)

Bush's fall rival, Sen. John Kerry 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.

_________________________________

Mr. Pweisdent . . Wou .. Would You Pwease Pwotect Hour Famiwies?

Senator Lincoln figures that Arkansas voters will not remember (Pro-Homo Marriage Vote) in November

520 posted on 07/19/2004 5:37:01 AM PDT by Happy2BMe (Ronald Reagan to Islamic Terrorism: YOU CAN RUN - BUT YOU CAN'T HIDE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
This issue will be back...


521 posted on 07/19/2004 6:52:15 AM PDT by Smartass ( BUSH & CHENEY IN 2004 - Si vis pacem, para bellum - Por el dedo de Dios se escribió.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 520 | View Replies]

To: unspun

I have no problem with your statement, or with his favorite philospher. I rather liked that response (Bush's) by the way. However, the idea that there'd be no aristocracy, that the gov't would be by the people, for the people, was inspired by French revolutionary philosophy. I think my original statement was that the const. was based upon Christian ideals and french philosophy - are we arguing here?


522 posted on 07/19/2004 9:03:20 AM PDT by mudblood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 516 | View Replies]

To: mudblood
I have no problem with your statement, or with his favorite philospher. I rather liked that response (Bush's) by the way. However, the idea that there'd be no aristocracy, that the gov't would be by the people, for the people, was inspired by French revolutionary philosophy. I think my original statement was that the const. was based upon Christian ideals and french philosophy - are we arguing here?

Looks like it, mb. I really suggest you either dig into those links I sent you, or pick up a copy of On Revolution, by Hannah Arendt. (How about both? ;-)

523 posted on 07/19/2004 10:18:31 AM PDT by unspun (RU working your precinct & assocs. for conservatives? | Not "Unspun with AnnaZ" but I appreciate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 522 | View Replies]

To: Smartass

We need a protest warrior-esq sign to flash during the kerry/backwards "rallies".

"kerry/edwards: We are HAPPY!"

"Loooove not children"

"Protect Judges, promoting happy couples"

"Democrats for Happiness"

"got next Generation?"

I don't know some help folks, something to keep this issue going to novemeber and beyond.


524 posted on 07/19/2004 11:51:20 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 521 | View Replies]

To: mudblood

American Revolution: every person has a right to be treated with respect.

French Revolution: every person has the right to treat everyone with disrespect.

just a humor note.


525 posted on 07/19/2004 11:58:36 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 522 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
Are you either pro-gay or homosexual?

What a ridiculous question... Are you pro-missionary position or pro-fellatio? What adults do in their own bedrooms is their own business.

526 posted on 07/19/2004 12:05:19 PM PDT by Lunatic Fringe (John F-ing Kerry??? NO... F-ING... WAY!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 519 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 351-400401-450451-500501-526 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