Nah. This is a Congressional move, and the president is along for the ride.

 

It's STUPID, but that's neither here nor there.

This is a congressional move only in the sense that there are congressional elections this year. But the folks coordinating the national Repub. election campaign are most certainly Administration folk.

For once, this will NOT work. And I still say it's not GWB's ideas. Rove, maybe, and if he thinks this particular charade will work, it won't.

Ultimately these 2 'hot button' issues shouldn't crack the list of the top 100 things that Congress should be looking at.

Ultimately these 2 'hot button' issues shouldn't crack the list of the top 100 things that Congress should be looking at.

 

Said in best capital one commercial clone voice...

 

Who's in YOUR bedroom?

 

Said in best capital one commercial clone voice...

 

Who's in YOUR bedroom?

 

heh

For once, this will NOT work. And I still say it's not GWB's ideas. Rove, maybe, and if he thinks this particular charade will work, it won't.

It's got Rove written all over it. Hard to beleive he's recycling thsi bit after just 2 years.

For once, this will NOT work. And I still say it's not GWB's ideas. Rove, maybe, and if he thinks this particular charade will work, it won't.

Yeah, I was sort of (100% completely trying to imply) that this is a Rove-esque move, which is why this whole vote is right at the Administration's door.

The Federal Discrimination Amendment couldn't even get 50 votes in the Senate (It needs 67 to pass.) The vote failed 49-48.

The Federal Discrimination Amendment couldn't even get 50 votes in the Senate (It needs 67 to pass.) The vote failed 49-48.

Do you have a link for who voted how?

Good. I am glad to see most had sense enough not to vote for something that has no place in the consititution in the first place.

Do you have a link for who voted how?

 

Indeed, as good old Sen. Brownback (R-Kan) said, "People are going to be responsible for this vote,". Hopefully voters hold the yes voters accountable and see them for the their willingness to have the federal government meddle in the persoal lives of Americans.

 

The Federal Discrimination Amendment couldn't even get 50 votes in the Senate (It needs 67 to pass.) The vote failed 49-48.

 

I think it only needed 60 to get an up or down floor vote.

You know, though, there's something to raise here. You all know I'm against this. But let me spin it another way.

 

It has become a federal issue from a "states rights" issue because of the lawsuits on all of it and the judges putting their "legislative touch" on the laws. So, until the constitution is clear on the issue, there's all the back and forth going on. If Texas passes a law banning gay marriage, it will DEFINITELY become a national issue because the federal court system will get involved. Yes, it will take years, but the point remains that this issue has forced itself unto the federal scene via this mechanism.

 

Still doesn't change my mind on what I think of the issue, but... it's a different take.

If the gov't would just get its claws out of marriage entirely, that would be ideal. It would fix this problem, and remove an intrusion into out lives that is just not necessary. Our personal relationships should not be regulated.

Do you have a link for who voted how?

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislati...asers/votes.htm

Lo, and God said to Abraham, "You shall keep the gays from getting married". And Abraham said "I can't hear you, you'll have to speak into the microphone." And God said, "Oh, I'm sorry, is this better? Check check, checkc check, Jerry turn up the hi-gain a little."

A few 2008 prez candidates and their votes:

 

Brownback (R-KS) Yea

Warner (R-VA) Yea

Bayh (D-IN) Nay

Biden (D-DE) Nay

McCain (R-AZ) Nay

Feingold (D-WI) Nay

Lieberman (D-CT) Nay

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislati...asers/votes.htm

Thank you.

Lieberman (D-CT) Nay

I'm actually impressed for once. Something tells me that he's hearing footsteps...

If the gov't would just get its claws out of marriage entirely, that would be ideal. It would fix this problem, and remove an intrusion into out lives that is just not necessary. Our personal relationships should not be regulated.

That's true, but there's always some nutjob wanting to test the boundaries, through (perhaps frivolous) lawsuits to make sure that everyone knows that certain classes of people are there. You see my point?

 

Like I said, I agree, this is something I wish that weren't discussed at all, but at the same time, it's almost forced.

"I don't believe there's any issue that's more important than this one," said Sen. David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican.

Wow.

Wow.

That is just all kinds of wrong.

If the gov't would just get its claws out of marriage entirely, that would be ideal. It would fix this problem, and remove an intrusion into out lives that is just not necessary. Our personal relationships should not be regulated.

 

Its too late for that in a way. Taxes are based on marital status. Divorces are proceded over by the courts. Adoptions are decided partially by martial status etc.

Its too late for that in a way. Taxes are based on marital status. Divorces are proceded over by the courts. Adoptions are decided partially by martial status etc.

Probably. Divorces can still be proceeded over by courts, even if there isn't a recognized marriage in the law - it would just become a civil suit for ownership under the same guidelines. But the marriage stuff just makes it more complicated, and you end up being penalized for being married.

Wow.

 

 

what a jag.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/06/dobbs.june7/index.html

 

normally i dont agree with Lou Dobbs that much, but he hit the nail on the head with this article. enjoy.