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]
Because the primary duty of the State is to promote the common good. You can claim that these things don't serve to promote the common good if you want. I don't have any objection to either in principle.
Senate votes are at http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_108_2.htm
House votes are at href=http://clerk.house.gov/legisAct/votes.html
Here's the Senate vote for this one. (Note the two Johns were the only senators not voting)
YEAs ---48
Alexander (R-TN) Allard (R-CO) Allen (R-VA) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burns (R-MT) Byrd (D-WV) Chambliss (R-GA) Cochran (R-MS) Coleman (R-MN) Cornyn (R-TX) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) DeWine (R-OH) Dole (R-NC) Domenici (R-NM) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Fitzgerald (R-IL) Frist (R-TN) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Kyl (R-AZ) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) McConnell (R-KY) Miller (D-GA) Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-NE) Nickles (R-OK) Roberts (R-KS) Santorum (R-PA) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-OR) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Talent (R-MO) Thomas (R-WY) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA)
NAYs ---50
Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Breaux (D-LA) Campbell (R-CO) Cantwell (D-WA) Carper (D-DE) Chafee (R-RI) Clinton (D-NY) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Corzine (D-NJ) Daschle (D-SD) Dayton (D-MN) Dodd (D-CT) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Graham (D-FL) Harkin (D-IA) Hollings (D-SC) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Johnson (D-SD) Kennedy (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Landrieu (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (D-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) McCain (R-AZ) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sarbanes (D-MD) Schumer (D-NY) Snowe (R-ME) Stabenow (D-MI) Sununu (R-NH) Wyden (D-OR)
Not Voting - 2
Edwards (D-NC) Kerry (D-MA)
After 16 years of public school education I doubt if that would make much difference to them. Most young people have drank the Kool-Aid of the NEA/homosexual agenda they have been fed since kindergarten. They are both solidly, economic conservative heterosexuals, but when it comes to homosexuality they just see it as a 'not my business what they do' issue. And I don't think they are in the minority in their age group. I told my wife if the homosexuals would just sit back and wait a few years they would get everything they want without a fight. Their problem is they are totally into immediate gratification, as in I want it NOW. And sadly with the help of activist judges and the USSC they are getting it now.
On an up-or-down vote on the amendment, R's would probably have lost Smith, Specter, DeWine, Allen, Warner, Hagel, Stevens, and maybe more.
Only justification for the State is to protect rights. The common good is an empty concept altogether.
No they don't. On the contrary they advocate against such things and expend tax dollars to say it's bad. They are teaching something that is probably best left to parents. Nonetheless it is "in the public" schools.
We have many weak Senators but look at how many took a stand. They could have run for the tall grass on this. Look at this from the long-term view, my friends. This was but one skirmish in the fight about what America is going to be. The other side can only force America to accept gay marriage not through the democratic process but though judges imposing it against the wishes of the people. When they do that they will win the battle but lose the war. So far its looking a lot better from this observer's perspective than the media has led us to believe.
No, good news for our black robed rulers
AMEN......the black robed lawless judges will continue to " rule AGAINST" the Constitution!!!!!
Nope. Sen. Smith (one of my senators) is on board. He spoke in favor on the Senate floor the other day.
We should all remember these words. When homosexual marriage comes to South Dakota (if the USSC makes it a Consitutional right), then we ought to all remember that these words came from an alleged leader who is supposed to have vision.
Byrd (D-WV)
Miller (D-GA) (Not really a Democrat.)
Nelson (D-NE)
HA! ... Bryd voted for it
"black robed rulers..."
Where the constitution doesn't say, the judges have to interpret based upon what's already there. There's nothing in the constitution that says marriage is between a man and a woman. Granted, there's also nothing that says marriage is between a man and a horse. So here you have millions of people denied what they perceive as rights for no constitutionally mandated reason. What's a judge to do?
LOL! CNN news on Rush's newsbreak only named the four.
They also said 50 "yes" votes. That's probably wrong, too.
;-)
Four RINOS; Collins, Snowe, McCaniniac, Sununu. All the rest were Rats with the exception of Byrd, Miller, and Nelson.
Ooooooooooo HE WAS IN DC!?!?!?!?!!
I had a feeling Byrd would vote yes. He may be a scoundrel, but even he can see that something ain't right with what the courts are doing on this.
Liberalism is about lawsuits and coerced virtue. In a funny sort of way, I have this warm glow inside relishing the fact the Senate's two no-shows happen to be wealthy lawyers. Mind you, a class that happens to be looked upon by most of the American people with disdain.
Six "Republicans" voted against. Three Democrats voted for.
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.