Under the radar?

 

1. Vilmar, I hate to sound contrary BUT-I’m AGAINST the “Marriage Amendment.” Why? Because the STATES should decide! I feel the same way about abortion-excluding partial birth.I’m anti-abortion btw. I sincerely doubt that the Framers intended to have a Big, Bloated federal government. The Federal Govt is supposed to delegate most of the power to the states. HOW ‘BOUT IT?
   Barb

   Posted by annoying little twerp       07/20/2004  at  04:37 PM  



2. Barb, I agree with you but the point is John-John ducking out on the issue but saying they would have been there to vote if it were on ‘up-and-down’ passage of the issue.  Interesting also is Poodle’s statement “the important work of the American people . . . is not getting done.” if it’s so important why aren’t you there 20% of the time!

   Notice how it only took 4 paragraphs to say how it was a “embarrassing defeat for President Bush”.

   Posted by itismedavid       07/20/2004  at  05:22 PM  



3. Barb, forgive me for stepping in here but I need to explain something to you and everyone. First let me quote you text from the Constitution:

   Article IV

   Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

   Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

   What this means is that if California and Massachusetts pass laws saying gay marriage is legal and couples get married there, even if the other 48 states disagree with it, they must all honor the gay marriage contract of the couples should they move to other states. So it doesn’t matter if the people in Iowa (or wherever) are against gay marriage - if a gay couple gets married in California and moves there, then Iowa (or wherever) has to afford them all the privileges of a married couple.

   The various states have no choice in this matter. They have to recognize the marriage, according to the Constitution. Therefore one state can decide what all the rest can or cannot do in this matter. That is why conservatives are pushing for a Constitutional Amendment.

   Posted by The Skipper       07/20/2004  at  05:33 PM  



4. Plus one more thing:  this measure would stop activist judges from MAKING law instead of interpreting it (which is what the judiciary was designed to do.)

   I, too, agree that states should have more power but as Allan point out above.............

   Posted by Vilmar       07/20/2004  at  05:53 PM  



5. I thought this was for comments on the Johns not showing up for work (BTW, they’re still getting paid, because the Clerk of the Senate continues to defy Senate rules that say they shouldn’t be getting paid.) The Johns are just Two Average Guys who, unlike the rest of us, can get paid for not going to work.

   Senators, you say the work of the people isn’t geting done-does that work include voting to confirm judges, work that isn’t being done because you’re part of a group that refuses to allow some judicial nominations to come to a vote?

   Being able to campaign and work simultaneously is one of the advantages that an incumbent President has.  He doesn’t have to physically be in Washington to do most things.  Air Force One ahs enough commo gear that he can talk to pretty much anyone from pretty much anywhere.  People who hold most other offices don’t have that capability (the VP being the notable exception-but it’s not like he has much to do anyway.)

   Posted by Heartless Libertarian       07/20/2004  at  07:35 PM  



6. Stop activist judges and you’ll stop the gay marriage issue. It’s less about rights than it is about tearing down this country and it’s constitution. I could care less about your sexual predelictions but I damned well don’t want them forced upon me.

   Posted by Jack       07/20/2004  at  08:11 PM  



7. The issue is not the Marriage Admendments, but the lack of Kerry and Edwards being there for the Vote (Chickenshits!). But then again I am not suprize, they have not been there for anything, except collecting their unearned paycheck. Check this out, Orin Hatch sez Edwards has only been present for his committee meetings 33% of the time. And this is who the Moonbats want to represent them?

   Mr Minority

   Posted by LC Mr Minority       07/20/2004  at  08:52 PM  

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.