Skip to comments.
Scott Brown for marriage amendment [another third partyist meme goes down in flames]
Renew America ^
| 25 January 2010
| Gary Swank
Posted on 01/25/2010 6:35:29 PM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
Another meme bites the dust.
To: SeattleBruce
2
posted on
01/25/2010 6:37:15 PM PST
by
Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
(We bury Democrats face down so that when they scratch, they get closer to home.)
To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Brown was one of 5 state Senators to vote for the State Constitutional Amendment to overturn
Goodridge.
Even though it was only a few years ago, his vote then was something of a profile in courage. He even got lambasted by high schoolers in his own town for it.
But Brown opposes the Federal Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage. Thus he is not 100% on our side. He might change his mind if DoMA is overruled by the Supreme Court in Coakley v. Sebelius.
3
posted on
01/25/2010 6:47:49 PM PST
by
cmj328
(Filibuster FOCA--a/k/a ObamaCare--or lose reelection)
To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Scott Brown is something of a RINO and will align against conservatives at times, but still, coming from Massachusetts, he’s a miracle in all the issues he will vote different from Teddy and how Coakley would have voted.
4
posted on
01/25/2010 6:50:09 PM PST
by
Will88
To: Will88
Politics is complicated. You have to pick your battles carefully. I don’t particularly care is he isn’t conservative 100% of the time just so long as he wins here and there.
5
posted on
01/25/2010 6:53:53 PM PST
by
Soothesayer
(The United States of America Rest in Peace November 4 2008)
To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Pretty darn good for a Republican Senator from the North East
6
posted on
01/25/2010 6:53:56 PM PST
by
dennisw
(It all comes 'round again --Fairport)
To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
as i said before he is prolly a liberal plant....i was hoping he would at least support our constitution.
7
posted on
01/25/2010 7:16:50 PM PST
by
dalebert
To: cmj328
My understanding on Brown is that he is generally against Federal anything.
Thus, he supported the MA health care program, but opposes the Federal program.
Same may be true in this case.
IOW, he wants major issues to be legislated in the individual states, rather than in Washington.
8
posted on
01/25/2010 7:24:16 PM PST
by
norge
(The amiable dunce is back, wearing a skirt and high heels.)
To: dalebert
“as i said before he is prolly a liberal plant....i was hoping he would at least support our constitution.”
Huh?
9
posted on
01/25/2010 8:06:08 PM PST
by
SeattleBruce
(God, Family, Church, Country - Keep on Tea Partiers - party like it's 1773 & pray 2 Chronicles 7:14!)
To: cmj328
"....Federal Constitutional Amendment ..." Hmmm! Since when does the further perversion of the original former Constitution qualify as a "measure" of ones conservativeness?
There is at least one important measure of a Conservative....Belief in, and support for, the Founders design of a Constitutional republic. It is the responsibility and prerogative of the States to have laws for marriage definition...Not the federal government...
We've already go too many stinking "amendments" to the former Constitution that contributed to the destruction of the Republic. Instead of more amendments we need to be getting rid of several we already have hung around our necks like an albatross.
10
posted on
01/25/2010 8:19:01 PM PST
by
SuperLuminal
(Where is another agitator for republicanism like Sam Adams when we need him?)
To: SuperLuminal
It is the responsibility and prerogative of the States to have laws for marriage definition...Not the federal government...
Uh, you know, don't you, that you cannot have a constitutional amendment without the states? A constitutional amendment can be proposed by Congress, but it is ratified by the states, not the federal government. Anything can be the subject of a constitutional amendment. It's up to the states to ratify it or not. On the other hand, it's constitutionally no business of the federal government to make laws in areas not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. So, whereas it would be consistent with the Constitution for states to ratify an amendment defining marriage, it would be unconstitutional for the Congress to define marriage and override a variety of state definitions.
11
posted on
01/25/2010 8:35:37 PM PST
by
aruanan
To: SeattleBruce
yes i am talking about brown
12
posted on
01/25/2010 8:56:10 PM PST
by
dalebert
To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Still a liberal RINO neocon.
To: SuperLuminal
The problem is that "gay marriage" makes a mockery of full faith and credit, and DoMA may get struck down.
That would make an amendment necessary to keep gay marriage out of Texas, for example.
14
posted on
01/26/2010 3:30:53 AM PST
by
cmj328
(Filibuster FOCA--a/k/a ObamaCare--or lose reelection)
To: Dr. North
“Still a liberal RINO neocon.”
Who seems to have taken apart national socialist health. Not bad that. Please criticize that point specifically.
15
posted on
01/26/2010 6:33:56 AM PST
by
SeattleBruce
(God, Family, Church, Country - Keep on Tea Partiers - party like it's 1773 & pray 2 Chronicles 7:14!)
To: dalebert
so you’re giving him partial credit?
16
posted on
01/26/2010 6:35:29 AM PST
by
SeattleBruce
(God, Family, Church, Country - Keep on Tea Partiers - party like it's 1773 & pray 2 Chronicles 7:14!)
To: SeattleBruce
Here’s a bet: Scott Brown will be handed a package of concessions by Obama and in return, Scott Brown will sign on to a lot of Obama’s legislation in the future.
He will be a deciding vote all right.
Just not the way that the Republican Echo Chamber is currently proclaiming.
To: SeattleBruce
I am saying he is a Romney style politician
18
posted on
01/26/2010 8:29:10 AM PST
by
dalebert
To: Dr. North
“Heres a bet: Scott Brown will be handed a package of concessions by Obama and in return, Scott Brown will sign on to a lot of Obamas legislation in the future.”
Wow, quite an untoward prediction, given all his VERY national public campaign promises to be indepedent.
We’ll see.
19
posted on
01/26/2010 10:12:57 AM PST
by
SeattleBruce
(God, Family, Church, Country - Keep on Tea Partiers - party like it's 1773 & pray 2 Chronicles 7:14!)
To: dalebert
What does this mean: “i was hoping he would at least support our constitution”?
20
posted on
01/26/2010 10:14:53 AM PST
by
SeattleBruce
(God, Family, Church, Country - Keep on Tea Partiers - party like it's 1773 & pray 2 Chronicles 7:14!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson