Posted on 01/25/2010 6:35:29 PM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
It was mistakenly reported by some newsfeeds that Scott Brown voted against the Massachusetts Marriage Amendment. Fact: he voted for the Massachusetts Marriage Amendment in 2007.
Per Baptist Press' Michael Foust: "Brown opposes 'gay marriage' and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and supports the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy and the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
"'Scott Brown not only voted against our community, but he did so unequivocally, proudly and loudly,' Arline Isaacson, chairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay & Lesbian Political Caucus, told Keen News Service. 'Brown voted at least 20 times against marriage equality, over and over again.'
Brian Brown, the executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, saw it much differently, calling the election 'a victory for marriage.'
"'The support of the people of Massachusetts for traditional marriage was clearly a factor in this election as marriage supporters turned out to elect Scott Brown to the United States Senate,' Brian Brown said in a statement."
When it comes to Brown and pro-life issues, Brown is not fully pro-life but he does support pro-lifers regarding endorsing parental notification laws, opposing partial-birth abortion, opposing tax moneys paying for abortions. and opposing the so-called Freedom of Choice Act.
Read "Brown win a setback for gay activists, liberal causes" at http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=32084
Ping!
Even though it was only a few years ago, his vote then was something of a profile in courage. He even got lambasted by high schoolers in his own town for it.
But Brown opposes the Federal Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage. Thus he is not 100% on our side. He might change his mind if DoMA is overruled by the Supreme Court in Coakley v. Sebelius.
Scott Brown is something of a RINO and will align against conservatives at times, but still, coming from Massachusetts, he’s a miracle in all the issues he will vote different from Teddy and how Coakley would have voted.
Politics is complicated. You have to pick your battles carefully. I don’t particularly care is he isn’t conservative 100% of the time just so long as he wins here and there.
Pretty darn good for a Republican Senator from the North East
as i said before he is prolly a liberal plant....i was hoping he would at least support our constitution.
My understanding on Brown is that he is generally against Federal anything.
Thus, he supported the MA health care program, but opposes the Federal program.
Same may be true in this case.
IOW, he wants major issues to be legislated in the individual states, rather than in Washington.
“as i said before he is prolly a liberal plant....i was hoping he would at least support our constitution.”
Huh?
Hmmm! Since when does the further perversion of the original former Constitution qualify as a "measure" of ones conservativeness?
There is at least one important measure of a Conservative....Belief in, and support for, the Founders design of a Constitutional republic. It is the responsibility and prerogative of the States to have laws for marriage definition...Not the federal government...
We've already go too many stinking "amendments" to the former Constitution that contributed to the destruction of the Republic. Instead of more amendments we need to be getting rid of several we already have hung around our necks like an albatross.
yes i am talking about brown
Still a liberal RINO neocon.
That would make an amendment necessary to keep gay marriage out of Texas, for example.
“Still a liberal RINO neocon.”
Who seems to have taken apart national socialist health. Not bad that. Please criticize that point specifically.
so you’re giving him partial credit?
Here’s a bet: Scott Brown will be handed a package of concessions by Obama and in return, Scott Brown will sign on to a lot of Obama’s legislation in the future.
He will be a deciding vote all right.
Just not the way that the Republican Echo Chamber is currently proclaiming.
“Here’s a bet: Scott Brown will be handed a package of concessions by Obama and in return, Scott Brown will sign on to a lot of Obama’s legislation in the future.”
Wow, quite an untoward prediction, given all his VERY national public campaign promises to be indepedent.
We’ll see.
What does this mean: “i was hoping he would at least support our constitution”?
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.