Skip to comments.
Marriage protection rejected by House
World Net Daily ^
| Oct 1, 2004
| staff
Posted on 09/30/2004 11:34:09 PM PDT by ETERNAL WARMING
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-24 last
To: TOUGH STOUGH
A majority did support the amendment. But a Constitutional amendment requires a super-majority.
I suspect that the House will have more amendment supporters after this election. How many more is uncertain.
To: Clintonfatigued
Thank you much for your post. I understand that. My original comment stands.
22
posted on
10/02/2004 4:28:53 PM PDT
by
TOUGH STOUGH
(Go Swifties!!!!!!!)
To: Happy2BMe
Ron Paul voted against it!!
23
posted on
10/02/2004 7:47:43 PM PDT
by
potlatch
(Sometimes I think I understand everything, then I regain consciousness.)
To: ETERNAL WARMING
I THOUGHT WE HAD A REPUBLICAN MAJORITY?
Oh that was a RINO majority...I remember now..
24
posted on
10/03/2004 2:30:43 PM PDT
by
Indie
(Ignorance of the truth is no excuse for stupidity.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-24 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