The two cowards in the Senate, afraid to take an official stand on the amendment to preserve traditional marriage, chat about how cool it is to be metrosexual. Notice the glint of jealousy in the Frenchie's eyes.
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]
You are exactly right.
Well said. The overwhelming number of gays will never marry. The endgame here is the redefinition (that's a nice word) of a key institution that stands between them and legitimacy.
Next will be use of government force to silence their enemies.
Suggested speech lead-in for Presidential comments on F.M.A. Senate vote today:
"My fellow Americans, today marked an important day in the US Senate when voices of reason and decency made attempts to protect the institution of marriage in the United States, something that is supported by a vast majority of the American people. Today, despite Senators Kerry and Edwards being the only two no-shows for this important vote, in addition to those in the Senate who voted against moving forward on this vital issue, I know the work will continue and that much needs to be done....."
It can be both. Natural marriage serves to promote the earthly good of husband, wife and children, and therefore of society. Sacramental marriage is ordered toward the eternal salvation of all of the members of the family.
Thank you John McCain and the Dems in the Senate for denying me my chance to be heard on this issue.
I agree that gay people don't particularly like being hated, disapproved of, etc. - but then again, neither do I. I don't want to see their advocacy groups in our elementary schools teaching children that "being Gay is ok!" - but then again, I don't want ANY advocacy groups in our classrooms. I must admit to being a bit creeped out by homosexuality on a purely asthetic level (ie., I'm not gay), and that's where I part company with them.
Correction: Hagel voted "yea."
Cnn Radio News (Rush's newsbreak) gave incorrect results right after the vote.
Fast, but not accurate.
(I don't think Rush has a choice -- he would never choose CNN for news on his program.)
Any and all. In this case the right of individuals to decide what constitutes the meaning of the word marriage. The word has an ancient cultural meaning and regardless of various peripheral claims, the word refers to a mutually agreed to contract between one man and one woman. That is the meaning that was just shot down by the leftists as being unrecognizanble to them.
47 Senators were able to recognize and acknowledge what is, and the others failed. The reason was to promote an open ended rainbow def, that serves all the idiot minorities. That open ended rainbow def, denies the rights of all those parents that want their kids to hear the truth, instead of all the various bogus teachings presented to normalize and present as wholesome homo arrangements and activities.
The homos can do anything they want. Their rights aren't being violated whatsoever. If they want rpoperty arrangements, they can form legal contracts to do so. They're not happy with that. They want to violate the culture to artificially and fraudulently raise the perceived acceptability and inherent humanness of their perversion to the status of that which the culture formerly recognized as reality.
It's good this is on the record now.
Fewer Republicans voted against it than I would have guessed (Yay!). I didn't realize McCain was pro-homomarriage.
Figures that Kerry and Edwards skipped the vote.
What I'm saying is most Americans don't care enough about gay marriage to demand that the U.S. Constitution be altered.
When I go over to that site, though, I end up losing my lunch most of the time....
The vote was for cloture, and it failed 48-50. A vote on cloture is a vote to shut off debate, and proceed to the main question. A cloture vote requires 60 for passage; thus the motion failed by 12 votes. The vote against cloture effectively prevented the question itself from coming to the floor.
Does anyone disagree with the above? Corrections cheerfully accepted; I've been wrong before.
Now, some more subjective opinions:
Some Senators may choose to hide behind the technical fact that they didn't vote for gay marriage per se, but only against shutting off debate. But I'm sure ratings groups right (such as the ACU) and left (such as the ADA) will count this vote as pro- or anti-gay marriage.
I'm sure that a couple of "nay" votes on the cloture question were from the right, or from a libertarian perspective (maybe Sununu's vote?), but most were from the left.
The Administration "won" here, by getting the supporters of gay marriage on the record (out of the closet, so to speak). The bill itself was never going to win, and if it had, it never would have been ratified.
Personally, I think it's God-awful constitutional law, but I'd have voted for cloture (and the bill itself) in a sort of "send 'em a message" mode. A bit hypocritical of me, I suppose, but that's how both sides are playing the game these days.
Lincoln (D-AR), Nay
Isn't this one running for re-election? In the Bible Belt.
Thats because most of our Republicans are a bunch of spineless weenies.
they already have tolerance; and in many states, they had civil unions also to address some of the issues like health care proxies, wills, etc. many private corporations give benefits also.
but they want to ram this down everyone's throat.
tell me, if one member of a married gay couple now takes a job at, let's say a Catholic hospital, does the hospital have to provide spousal benefits for the husband (or wife, or whatever they are going to be called)? how long before a court rules that they must do it, since gay marriages are legal?
about 10 seconds.
You are correct.
I was quoting CNN Radio News, which reported on Rush's Newsbreak immediately after the vote.
They also had the percentages reversed. Glad I didn't quote those.
let's see what tune they start singing when its gets to their kids. it will be too late by then of course, to nullify all of the gay marriages that are already in place.
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.