Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Same-Sex 'Marriage' Issue: Senators on the High Priority Contact List (MUST BE CONTACTED!)
FRC.ORG ^ | July 13, 2004 | James Dobson

Posted on 07/13/2004 8:07:04 AM PDT by thinkahead

Same-Sex 'Marriage' Issue: Senators on the High Priority Contact List

As the Senate prepares to vote on an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to protect marriage, it is vital that all pro-family Americans contact their Senators in support of this necessary amendment.
spacer

Below is a list of Senators that Family Research Council has deemed to be the highest priority. If your Senator is listed, please contact him or her immediately and tell them to cast a vote in support of traditional marriage during the week of July 12th.



TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; News/Current Events; US: Alaska; US: Arkansas; US: Indiana; US: Louisiana; US: Maine; US: Nebraska; US: New Hampshire; US: North Dakota; US: Ohio; US: South Dakota; US: Virginia; US: Washington
KEYWORDS: attackingthefamily; culturewar; fma; gen2; godsjudgement; goodvsevil; homosexualbehavior; marriageamendment; mockinggod; mtvculture; nambla; oligarchy; politicians; popculture; romans1; rulebypoliticians; samesexmarriage; secularhumanism; secularhumanist; sinators; socialism; spiritualbattle; tyrants; wagessin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-103 next last
To: Robert_Paulson2
Well, yes, I'm in favor of getting government out of our hair--but when one branch of government redefines marriage to include homosexual couples (MA Supreme Court) the only remedy to return the situation back to where it was is a constitutional amendment defining marriage.
81 posted on 07/13/2004 7:43:02 PM PDT by Forgiven_Sinner (The Passion of the Christ--the top non-fiction movie of all time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Robert_Paulson2
The question was can the USSC declare a part of the Constitution, unconstitutional. While I do not disagree with most of what you said. The answer is still, NO.
82 posted on 07/13/2004 7:51:05 PM PDT by HoustonCurmudgeon (Some parts of the world are filled with scum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Forgiven_Sinner
Good sentiments!
83 posted on 07/13/2004 9:11:11 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 80 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne

Bump!


84 posted on 07/13/2004 9:15:01 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: thinkahead

You may need to get local office numbers, most of the DC offices have went to voicemail.


85 posted on 07/13/2004 9:18:55 PM PDT by TheEaglehasLanded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Forgiven_Sinner

Are you from West Chicago?


86 posted on 07/13/2004 9:28:49 PM PDT by TheEaglehasLanded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Robert_Paulson2

May I postulate that if you and your wife/family were the only existing humans that you would be the de facto "clanleader" and making the rules governing marriage irrespective of whether you had any religious convictions at all.

Marriage is not a religious institution, but a civil one and therefore under the purvue of the civil authorities, you know, the dread government.

Saying the state has zero right to regulate it is laughable, since it is the state (family law court) that is called upon to enforce it. (Hah, now they just preside over it's destruction).

And We, the people, through our elected reps have every right to define it and overturn the usurpation of the courts.

Your demands that the state get out of civil relationships is a non sequitur and not reality based.


87 posted on 07/13/2004 9:59:20 PM PDT by Valpal1 (Pray for our troops, that our domestic enemies would be silenced AND impeach the 9th! Please!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: thinkahead

When are Republicans gonna show some real cajones and force a real filibuster? In other words, when are Republicans going to act like they are the majority party?


88 posted on 07/13/2004 10:42:22 PM PDT by Nephi (A marriage amendment that allows for civil unions protects the word "marriage" not the institution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thinkahead; jimrob; Admin Moderator

Can this please stay in breaking news? We're remodeling and I have just a few minutes online...I accidentally stumbled upon the post. This is arguably 'the most' important issue that will ever be decided in America.
Pleeeezzzzzzeeee


89 posted on 07/14/2004 6:32:06 AM PDT by tutstar ( <{{--->< http://ripe4change.4-all.org Be part of the solution not part of the problem!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Robert_Paulson2

Its early and I may be reading it wrong, but what I got from your post is basically the government should get out of and has no proper authority in matters of marriage. Correct?

If so, then without question gays can get married, as can polygamists and others who are not in a traditional man/women relationship.

This I disagree with.


90 posted on 07/14/2004 7:05:41 AM PDT by Phantom Lord (Distributor of Pain, Your Loss Becomes My Gain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: WVNan
#30..Same here.
I called both...(husband wrote them)...

..and Nelson's office took my zip code--(which will show I have been a voter in his district for over 30 years!

Graham's handlers didn't bother with a zip code......

I'm not holding my breath over either....they're Dems!!!!

Nelson fooled many of us years ago when he first ran for office....I cannot bear to hear or see him now!!!

91 posted on 07/14/2004 7:14:00 AM PDT by Guenevere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: TheEaglehasLanded
#85...That's what I did.
Called Tallahassee early morning...

..and a real person answered the phone and said they were tallying reponses from the callers.

92 posted on 07/14/2004 7:20:24 AM PDT by Guenevere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

<> I agree! Sure is hard to believe theres another reasonable explanation for condoning a deviant perverse sexual behavior. It boggles my mind how many Americans have bought into the idea that sexual deviants deserve a legal minority status and equal rights.


93 posted on 07/14/2004 7:36:39 AM PDT by DirtyHarryY2K (BUSH 2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: thinkahead

BUMP


94 posted on 07/14/2004 8:55:29 AM PDT by truthandlife ("Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God." (Ps 20:7))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1

Marriage is not a religious institution



Ridiculous.
and a statist/sociialist view of life on this planet.

and wrong.


95 posted on 07/14/2004 1:37:57 PM PDT by Robert_Paulson2 (the madridification of our election is now officially underway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Robert_Paulson2

The United States is not a theocracy.

Marriage is a civil social institution in this country and is about to be hijacked by runaway courts while you mewl your pernicious theories.

The Federal Constitution can be ammended to govern how the Federal government will define it and treat its participants and what benefits/responsibilities it will assign to it for federal purposes (including federal courts). It needs to be done, although I'd be just as happy to accompany it with an impeachment of a judge or two or three.


96 posted on 07/14/2004 3:54:15 PM PDT by Valpal1 (Pray for our troops, that our domestic enemies would be silenced AND impeach the 9th! Please!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: thinkahead

Gay Marriage Roll Call Vote

The 50-48 roll call by which the Senate blocked a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Supporters of the amendment fell 12 votes short of the 60 they needed to advance the bill.

On this vote, a "yes" vote was a vote to advance the measure and a "no" vote was a vote to stop it.

Voting "yes" were 3 Democrats and 45 Republicans.

Voting "no" were 43 Democrats, 6 Republicans and 1 Independent.

X denotes those not voting.

Democrats Yes

Byrd, W.Va.; Miller, Ga.; Nelson, Neb.

Democrats No

Akaka, Hawaii; Baucus, Mont.; Bayh, Ind.; Biden, Del.; Bingaman, N.M.; Boxer, Calif.; Breaux, La.; Cantwell, Wash.; Carper, Del.; Clinton, N.Y.; Conrad, N.D.; Corzine, N.J.; Daschle, S.D.; Dayton, Minn.; Dodd, Conn.; Dorgan, N.D.; Durbin, Ill.; Feingold, Wis.; Feinstein, Calif.; Graham, Fla.; Harkin, Iowa; Hollings, S.C.; Inouye, Hawaii; Johnson, S.D.; Kennedy, Mass.; Kohl, Wis.; Landrieu, La.; Lautenberg, N.J.; Leahy, Vt.; Levin, Mich.; Lieberman, Conn.; Lincoln, Ark.; Mikulski, Md.; Murray, Wash.; Nelson, Fla.; Pryor, Ark.; Reed, R.I.; Reid, Nev.; Rockefeller, W.Va.; Sarbanes, Md.; Schumer, N.Y.; Stabenow, Mich.; Wyden, Ore.

Democrats Not Voting

Edwards, N.C.; Kerry, Mass.






Republicans Yes

Alexander, Tenn.; Allard, Colo.; Allen, Va.; Bennett, Utah; Bond, Mo.; Brownback, Kan.; Bunning, Ky.; Burns, Mont.; Chambliss, Ga.; Cochran, Miss.; Coleman, Minn.; Cornyn, Texas; Craig, Idaho; Crapo, Idaho; DeWine, Ohio; Dole, N.C.; Domenici, N.M.; Ensign, Nev.; Enzi, Wyo.; Fitzgerald, Ill.; Frist, Tenn.; Graham, S.C.; Grassley, Iowa; Gregg, N.H.; Hagel, Neb.; Hatch, Utah; Hutchison, Texas; Inhofe, Okla.; Kyl, Ariz.; Lott, Miss.; Lugar, Ind.; McConnell, Ky.; Murkowski, Alaska; Nickles, Okla.; Roberts, Kan.; Santorum, Pa.; Sessions, Ala.; Shelby, Ala.; Smith, Ore.; Specter, Pa.; Stevens, Alaska; Talent, Mo.; Thomas, Wyo.; Voinovich, Ohio; Warner, Va.

Republicans No

Campbell, Colo.; Chafee, R.I.; Collins, Maine; McCain, Ariz.; Snowe, Maine; Sununu, N.H.

Others No

Jeffords, Vt.


97 posted on 07/14/2004 8:38:35 PM PDT by take
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: take

Thanks for the roll call vote. The SIX dim-wit RINOS need to hear the wrath of the voters. What they will get however are most likely unopposed primaries...sigh!! Slouching toward SODOM and GOREMORON....this thread is officially done!!


98 posted on 07/14/2004 9:25:08 PM PDT by thinkahead (to avoid future problems...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Bogey78O
I think Breaux will vote for the amendment -- he's a pretty independent guy and may not be listening to Dasschole any more, now that he's "short".

Some of those senators are totally lost causes -- Patty Murray, are you kidding? Evan Bayh? -- LOL!

OTOH, Hagel should be pretty stout.

Lincoln is a Klintoon clone. Young Pryor is pretty much one too, so forget Arkinsaw.

99 posted on 07/15/2004 11:08:10 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus (Honi soit qui mal y pense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: shellylet
Boxer is coming up for election next year.

Didn't Boxer just barely squeak by against a well-heeled Asian-American 'Pubbie last time?

No doubt she is the "Goremoron" of whom you speak. I've heard her IQ knocked before -- she does it all on feeeeeeeeeeeelllllings!

Kinda like Babs.

100 posted on 07/15/2004 11:12:23 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus (Honi soit qui mal y pense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-103 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