Posted on 07/12/2004 10:26:34 AM PDT by abnegation
And so it begins.....
We should start a pool betting on whether or not Left and Further Left show up for this.
I'm waiting for a 'rat to say that defending marriage does not rise to the level of a constitutional issue because "It's all about sex".
Sen. Wayne Allard (R) Colorado.....Talking now about fillibusters....I just dare the Rats to do it.
Glad to see we are discussing the TRULY important issues of the day, and not bothering to discuss those small and petty issues like terror, health care, the economy, and so forth.
What a festering pile of CRAP this amendment is!
I believe I heard somewhere that they would make a point of being there to vote. It not for their TV appearances, they might not be recognized.
Thanks for starting this thread
};)
Let me see, at least the last time I looked the economy was booming (thanks to W), WOT is actually being waged not left to the French and the UN (thanks to W) and health care has been saved out of the jaws of the Hildebeast...(sigh, of course it depends on WHERE you are from I suppose.)
You just know the Dems don't want to go on record with this vote *L*
No one else did so I jumped right in. I've been waiting for this (I don't view it as a waste of time btw).
Carl Camerson said they will be in DC on Wed for the vote
Having a trouble focusing????
How will they pull off "voting both ways"?
Actually, the CRAP part is that so many have let society degenerate to the point that we even need to consider such an amendment. NAMBLA members love people with your attitude; it puts them that much closer to being able to rape young boys with impunity...
The family IS the foundation of our civilization. I can think of nothing more important to bring to the national debate. And yes, resolved - it deserves to be protected in our Constitution and laws. In the meantime, go back whither thou comest, DU troll!
108th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. J. RES. 40
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
July 7, 2004
Mr. ALLARD (for himself, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. ENZI, Mr. FITZGERALD, Mr. FRIST, Mr. HATCH, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. KYL, Mr. LOTT, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. MILLER, Mr. SANTORUM, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. TALENT, Mr. CRAPO, and Mr. CRAIG) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read the first time
July 8, 2004
Read the second time and placed on the calendar
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:
`Article--
`SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
`This Article may be cited as the `Federal Marriage Amendment'.
`SECTION 2. MARRIAGE AMENDMENT.
`Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.'.
Calendar No. 620
The Dem strategy is obvious. They are going to oppose iyt, but solely on the basis of the argument that it is wrong to monkey with the Constitution...and totally igore the underlying issue..
If you feel that way, why did you bother to post to the thread?
"What a festering pile of CRAP this amendment is!"
I disagree. I believe we need to start strengthening marriage since it is the foundation on which society is built.
Ah, but since you think this is a topic not worth spending time on, I'm sure you won't be responding to this post. You have more important things to do.
Culturaly I feel like I'm on Omaha Beach and the Panzers are coming down the cliffs.
Yes, and sponsored by BOTH of my Senators (Craig and Crapo, ID). For once, I don't have to call them to complain either! LOL
"`Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."
Thanks for putting up the language, Oxen. This matters. This is not c@#9.
When the very foundation of our societal structure is degraded, I can think of no more important piece of legislation to get in place ASAP.
When our founding fathers used the phrase, "we hold these truths to be self-evident", never in their wildest dreams were they imagining the depths of depravity that we would be debating as "rights" less than 250 years later.
The amendment doesn't have a SINGLE Senate Democratic co-sponsor. Not even Joe Lieberman or Zell Miller. What is it about the Democrats that they talk about American values but can't bring themselves to support the most important of them all? Which is an American as apple pie. Anyway, however the Senate votes, this will tell us a great deal on what Congress thinks about our most important social institution and its future and the sad part is these people need a LOT of convincing to do the right thing.
Santorum is doing an excellent job of explaining why this is important, etc.
A totally phony argument which a lot of gutless Republicans will buy into also. If this issue where brought to the vote of the American people, it would pass by a landslide. Here, its our elected representatives who for once, are out of touch with public opinion.
Santorem is doing a good job defending this amendment. "Children need mothers and fathers and society should be all about that." Hard to believe we have come to the point where this has to be fought for.
What a festering pile of CRAP this amendment is!
Last time I looked, the vast majority of the country didn't agree with you regarding gay "marriage". Now, why not run along and join you buds at DU.
ZELL is on it now.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SJ00040:@@@P
Its simple common sense. What has happened to our country that the proposition Sen. Santorum put forth has become so controversial?
Whatever they say, they are not really talking about rights. They are talking about the privilege of employers paying for benefits. I am no fan of government ordered benefits. If an employer has the means and the inclination to offer benefits to gay couples then that's great. In fact, the big companies (which are supposed to be the cornerstone of the vrwc) offer partner benefits. It's the small business that gets hosed.
Wouldn't it be healthier for people to do what they think is right and not rely on others to pay for those decisions?
Unfortunately, debate is as far as it will go as it will never pass.
Up to 70% of the American people in various states from Republican, conservative Alaska to Democratic, liberal Hawaii have backed protecting traditional marriage. A partisan issue it ain't.
I didn't say it was valid..I merely explained how the Dems will positin and spin it..
We will see. The debate can still be enlightening to the country in telling us what the Democrats mean by American values.
It's obvious when a DUer infests FR; you can smell them.
Not likely.
Right, so let's focus on the reason that so many actual marriages fail, rather than trying to stop people who want to be married from getting married. Britney Spears can get married and then annulled in 55 hours, and can then get engaged to her boyfriend, who happens to be the fiance to the woman with whom he has one child and another on the way, and there's no problem with that. But two guys who have been together for 15 years want to get married, and woah! We need an amendment to our Constitution! This is a cheap political stunt, and it makes the GOP look petty.
Going on record is very powerful. It is one thing that the 2 Johns cannot deny today.
I remember during the hearings on illegal campaign contributions / nuclear secrets / Chinese connections that person after person sent a note from their lawyers saying that they would invoke their fifth amendment rights not to testify. The stupid Republicans must have valued a long lunch over the powerful video and pictures of all those people taking the fifth. They should have made every one of them come to the Senate and personally state their refusal to testify. I think that more than 50 fled the country in addition to the dozens who pleaded the fifth. Most people in the country do not even know about those entire, close to treasonous, events. Pictures get through to people.
Nearly a decade after 86 Senators voted for the Defense Of Marriage Act, it can't pass? I'll be happy if it gets a majority as it ought. If it doesn't it says more about our politicians than it does about where the American people stand.
The vast majority of the country thought it was right that blacks and whites be segregated in the 1950s.
So by your logic, we should have maintained Jim Crow laws.
For someone who views this as "crap" and a "waste of time" you sure are weighing in on it. Perhaps your time would be better served to go to a thread at DU where they are discussing "WOT, the economy and health care".
Already preparing to make both of WV's RAT Senator's pay for their certain votes against this eminently sensible and necessary Amendment.
Bravo.
Feinstein is next. Sigh.
The real problem is precisely the one you allude. It isn't about what gay people do. Its the fact that from the Left, marriage and the family have been weakened to the point where it makes more sense to live together than to be married. Gays and lesbians have rights too but the right to redefine the meaning of marriage for the rest of society isn't among them.
So, if it can't pass then forget doing it?
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat." Theodore Roosevelt
Conn, sonar, possible troll contact, bearing 170...
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.