Replies

Your source is woefully out of date, and just plain wrong. Three months after that Blade article of yours was published in 2004, Sen. Allen voted for S J Res 40, which prohibits individual states from recognizing marital status and or legal benefits from any other unions other than that of a man and woman.

This is really irrelevant as the original point was that Allen had not gotten on board with the idea of a federal marriage amendment. We know that when a liberal finds a law unpalatable, they merely go court shopping till they find a judge willing to overturn it. In light of this fact, there's really no excuse for a Republican nominee who claims to be a conservative to oppose a federal marriage amendment...unless of course he's going for that supermajority that all those log cabin Republican votes will give him (yeah, right).

Sen. Allen staunchly opposes any legislation allowing illegal immigrants to achieve citizenship without leaving the country first: Allen said on This Week, "It may be several years down the road or months down the road - we can get a consensus on how you handle a good temporary worker system."

In other words, Allen supports legislation that allows illegal immigrants to achieve citizenship after returning to their homelands and supports a guest worker program.

Face it. You're not going to get a major presidential candidate for 2008 with a stronger stand against illegal immigration. Tancredo said today that he's not running, and Brownback sold out to the Dems on the issue.

If Tancredo has announced that he's not running, that's a shame. If Allen's is the most conservative candidate this party can offer up in 2008, that's a greater shame.

This is really irrelevant as the original point was that Allen had not gotten on board with the idea of a federal marriage amendment. We know that when a liberal finds a law unpalatable, they merely go court shopping till they find a judge willing to overturn it. In light of this fact, there's really no excuse for a Republican nominee who claims to be a conservative to oppose a federal marriage amendment...unless of course he's going for that supermajority that all those log cabin Republican votes will give him (yeah, right).

Allen has a wide libertarian streak that gets him in hot water with conservatives sometimes. I'm going to guess that's what happened here and he decided to take the conservative position as opposed to the libertarian one.

The important thing is he's with us now.

This is really irrelevant as the original point was that Allen had not gotten on board with the idea of a federal marriage amendment. We know that when a liberal finds a law unpalatable, they merely go court shopping till they find a judge willing to overturn it. In light of this fact, there's really no excuse for a Republican nominee who claims to be a conservative to oppose a federal marriage amendment...unless of course he's going for that supermajority that all those log cabin Republican votes will give him (yeah, right).

Did you even bother to read the article?

Reid said Allen believes the Defense of Marriage Act, which Congress passed in 1996, is sufficient to protect the institution of marriage in the United States. The act, known as DOMA, defines marriage under federal law as a union between a man and a woman and declares that no state can be forced to recognize same-sex marriages performed in another state.

“He would only support a constitutional amendment if it becomes absolutely necessary,” said Reid. Right now, Allen believes DOMA “has already resolved this issue,” Reid said.

What you people have yet to learn about Allen is that he will not vote the party line just because it's the party line. He will think though and read up on each issue before making a decision.

What you also have to understand is that he's not about pushing or supporting legislation just because. He has to believe that it's actually necessary. He won't support a law just because it's ~there~.

THAT's conservatism. THATS's limited government.