An ammendment to protect marriage

[dgoldstein]

Liberal Republicans have shown themselves to be traitorous to the values of marriage, which has survived millenia, by casting their votes against the marriage amendment. An amendment is more important now than ever. There's an interesting editorial on this subject, on op-eds.com. You all may want to check it out.

 

[HGROKIT]

Liberal Republicans have shown themselves to be traitorous to the values of marriage, which has survived millenia, by casting their votes against the marriage amendment. An amendment is more important now than ever. There's an interesting editorial on this subject, on op-eds.com. You all may want to check it out.

You could be kind by editing this post to include the link to the story!

And welcome

 

[freeandfun1]

Actually, this could play into the GOP's hands. This vote exposed those against an ammendment, yet the polls show that a MAJORITY of Americans support one. The vote yesterday might drive some to the polls to vote AGAINST those that voted against the amendment!

 

[Annie]

Liberal Republicans have shown themselves to be traitorous to the values of marriage, which has survived millenia, by casting their votes against the marriage amendment. An amendment is more important now than ever. There's an interesting editorial on this subject, on op-eds.com. You all may want to check it out.

Yes, Welcome! I take it you saw that I deleted the second post, it was duplicate of first.

 

[DKSuddeth]

is there going to be nothing but spin on this to flush out the GOP members who disagree with the rest of the party or who are standing up for not amending the constitution for this?

Thats all this op-ed is designed to do it seems.

 

[Annie]

Here's the link to the op-ed:

http://www.opinioneditorials.com/guestcontributors/cadamo_20040715.html

I'm against an amendment on this. Do think it should be decided by the states. For the record, DK :tng: I'm also against the spending out of control and the position on changing immigration laws. So now I suppose, I'm stuck to the next kerfuffle, with being a liberal in conservative clothing? Nah! :usa:

 

[DKSuddeth]

Here's why I have a problem with this op-editorial author, as well as those who are standing by this tripe.

In defeating the Federal Marriage Amendment, they displayed their unwillingness to uphold basic conservative principle. Thus, they not only allowed the forces of the counterculture to press forward with their assault on traditional morality, but also simultaneously squandered a golden opportunity to elevate the standing of their party in they eyes of the electorate.

1) it shouldn't be a 'conservative principle' to amend the constitution to party, religious, or supposedly traditional beliefs...

2) despite the doomsday gloom prophecy of 'same sex marriage' being the ultimate demise of america and humanity in general this shouldn't be now, nor in the future, an issue of constitutional amendments. The constitution was, once again I'm saying this, a document LIMITING government authority over the people, not a document to establish the moral, religious, or living standards of a populace. Doing so takes us one step closer to a country that is ruled by a government instead of having a government elected by the people.

 

[NewGuy]

Here's why I have a problem with this op-editorial author, as well as those who are standing by this tripe.



1) it shouldn't be a 'conservative principle' to amend the constitution to party, religious, or supposedly traditional beliefs...

2) despite the doomsday gloom prophecy of 'same sex marriage' being the ultimate demise of america and humanity in general this shouldn't be now, nor in the future, an issue of constitutional amendments. The constitution was, once again I'm saying this, a document LIMITING government authority over the people, not a document to establish the moral, religious, or living standards of a populace. Doing so takes us one step closer to a country that is ruled by a government instead of having a government elected by the people.

:clap1: :read:

 

[Annie]

Here's why I have a problem with this op-editorial author, as well as those who are standing by this tripe.



1) it shouldn't be a 'conservative principle' to amend the constitution to party, religious, or supposedly traditional beliefs...

2) despite the doomsday gloom prophecy of 'same sex marriage' being the ultimate demise of america and humanity in general this shouldn't be now, nor in the future, an issue of constitutional amendments. The constitution was, once again I'm saying this, a document LIMITING government authority over the people, not a document to establish the moral, religious, or living standards of a populace. Doing so takes us one step closer to a country that is ruled by a government instead of having a government elected by the people.

I'm not going to disagree with you. Seems to me that the states have and should control marriage, adoption, driving laws, licensing, schools, etc. The feds do not make things like this more managable, quite the contrary, look what they spend for toilet seats and did you see how many pages that 9/11 Commission Report was ? Like nearly 8" thick. Nope, no fed. No Amendment. I feel the same with abortion, should be done by state.

 

[CSM]

It seems to me that the federal government has always done a poor job of legislating morality. In my opinion, amending the constitution should not be a trivial task or taken lightly.

 

[dilloduck]

I'm not going to disagree with you. Seems to me that the states have and should control marriage, adoption, driving laws, licensing, schools, etc. The feds do not make things like this more managable, quite the contrary, look what they spend for toilet seats and did you see how many pages that 9/11 Commission Report was ? Like nearly 8" thick. Nope, no fed. No Amendment. I feel the same with abortion, should be done by state.

I've always been against this amendment too. The feds don't handle these issues well. If gays want to push this issue, I would think those who wish to stop gay marriage should start by challenging it locally. If it ultimately gets to the supreme court, so be it.

 

[musicman]

It's all part of a high-stakes game. Homosexuals lobby long and loud for the right to marry, knowing that, if they can get the more exhausted and weak among us to say, "All right - civil unions, but that's where we draw the line!", they have come away with a huge win. Snickering all the way to the bank, they'll know that they have achieved nothing less than a government "Imprimatur" on a behavior that the overwhelming majority of Americans consider perverted and dangerous.

Meanwhile, President Bush counters with a proposed amendment which - he knows - doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing. However, in the process, he smokes out a lot of politicians who, at this critical juncture, would much rather have kept their views on this particular issue on the "down low." The repurcussions of yesterday's vote are going to ring loud and clear in a couple of months.

 

[DKSuddeth]

It's all part of a high-stakes game. Homosexuals lobby long and loud for the right to marry, knowing that, if they can get the more exhausted and weak among us to say, "All right - civil unions, but that's where we draw the line!", they have come away with a huge win. Snickering all the way to the bank, they'll know that they have achieved nothing less than a government "Imprimatur" on a behavior that the overwhelming majority of Americans consider perverted and dangerous.

Meanwhile, President Bush counters with a proposed amendment which - he knows - doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing. However, in the process, he smokes out a lot of politicians who, at this critical juncture, would much rather have kept their views on this particular issue on the "down low." The repurcussions of yesterday's vote are going to ring loud and clear in a couple of months.

well, is it that they didn't want their views known or that they truly feel that this isn't for the constitution?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Actually, this could play into the GOP's hands. This vote exposed those against an ammendment, yet the polls show that a MAJORITY of Americans support one. The vote yesterday might drive some to the polls to vote AGAINST those that voted against the amendment!

If the polls show that the majority of Americans (I've heard anywhere from 70% to 90%) are against gay marriage, why didn't this amendment pass easily?

Looks like the "special interest group" called the "homosexual lobby" has bought quite a lot of votes one way or another. For a group representing only about 2% of the nation, it sure weilds a lot of power.

 

[DKSuddeth]

someone has to show me a handful of polls that have some legitimacy on how americans are siding for/against gay marriage. I've never seen one.

 

[Gop guy]

Liberal Republicans have shown themselves to be traitorous to the values of marriage, which has survived millenia, by casting their votes against the marriage amendment. An amendment is more important now than ever. There's an interesting editorial on this subject, on op-eds.com. You all may want to check it out.

I know I know, kudos again to President Bush for speaking the mind of the vast majority of this great nation and standing up to those radical pyscho judges.

One way or another, the TYRANNY of the MINORITY WILL be stoped.

 

[HGROKIT]

well, is it that they didn't want their views known or that they truly feel that this isn't for the constitution?

Most of these guys could give a rats ass about the consitution. It is all about constituency and re-election. Now that they have solidified a position, they can never chage without loosing face.

 

[musicman]

well, is it that they didn't want their views known or that they truly feel that this isn't for the constitution?

Excellent point. Many conservatives, myself included, would be loath to mess with the constitution, even in an attempt to do good. I would say that one's opposition to the amendment - taken in the context of his/her voting record on the whole - might help to clarify motivation.

Of course, that's giving the electorate a lot of credit!

 

[musicman]

Just a clarification:

If a senator does't want his/her views on homosexual marriage known, I'm inclined to say, "Tough shit!" I think it's a fair question for voters to be able to ask.

 

[mattskramer]

Just a clarification:

If a senator does't want his/her views on homosexual marriage known, I'm inclined to say, "Tough shit!" I think it's a fair question for voters to be able to ask.

We agree. By the way, did you ask me some questions that I have yet to answer? If so, please repeat them.