To: Crackingham
The mainstream media also knows that every single time the question of same-sex marriage has been submitted directly to the voters, it has been overwhelming rejected.IIRC rejected by 11 states in the 2004 election, and a few were even states won by Kerry.
2 posted on
09/22/2005 4:38:57 PM PDT by
perfect stranger
("Hell Bent for Election" by Warburg)
To: Crackingham
There isn't an honest journalist in the country who would deny that those are interesting questions which would generate news no matter how Senator Clinton or Senator Reid or Schumer answered. That they haven't been asked--by any reporter in any venue of any big-name Democrat--speaks volume about the mainstream media's bias and its adjunct status to the Democratic party. -Hugh HewittWe need to hold big media's feet to the fire. Don't just dismiss them as a lost cause. Russert et al: Ask national Democrats where they stand on the California Democratic legislature's attempted end-run around the voters. Was the Governor correct to veto it?.
To: Crackingham
****The bill proposed changing the legal definition of marriage from "a civil contract between a man and a woman" to a "civil contract between two persons." ******
I guess that means you could marry your mother or your sister. Or your father if he was queer. Be pretty nice to have the Fathers pension passed on to his daughter.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson