Wednesday, July 14, 2004
OUR SYSTEM WORKS (SOMETIMES)
"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A proposed constitutional amendment that would effectively prohibit gay or lesbian couples from legally marrying is expected to die in a procedural Senate vote Wednesday."
I don't think I can take full resposibility for this, but I did do my part, and am now patting myself on the back as I toot my own horn. I don't know if anybody actually called Chuck or Hillary (telepohone numbers provided in QUEER EYES ON THE PRIZE post), but somehow the message got through. I think the real reason the bill won't pass was because it is just plain stupid. Power to the people, right on!
"On Tuesday night, Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, called the amendment unnecessary and un-Republican and said he would side with opponents of the amendment on the procedural vote in order to make clear to his constituents that he is against the amendment itself."
We need more Republicans like this guy.
"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A proposed constitutional amendment that would effectively prohibit gay or lesbian couples from legally marrying is expected to die in a procedural Senate vote Wednesday."
I don't think I can take full resposibility for this, but I did do my part, and am now patting myself on the back as I toot my own horn. I don't know if anybody actually called Chuck or Hillary (telepohone numbers provided in QUEER EYES ON THE PRIZE post), but somehow the message got through. I think the real reason the bill won't pass was because it is just plain stupid. Power to the people, right on!
"On Tuesday night, Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, called the amendment unnecessary and un-Republican and said he would side with opponents of the amendment on the procedural vote in order to make clear to his constituents that he is against the amendment itself."
We need more Republicans like this guy.
Comments:
Your a political flounder Savage. I like John Mc as well, but while he has his doubts as to G.W.'s fitness for the office and is the voice of reason on this issue (non-issue really), he is VERY strong on our position in Iraq, our motives for going, and insuring that we kill every terrorist that dares walk the streets over there. All the things counter to your conspiricy theory position of the conflict. As a matter of fact, he was highly critical of our decision to back out of Fallujah and "negotiate" with Sadar's insurgancy. He felt that we should have swept the town and finished them off for good, as did I.
I beg you to read William Safire's column today in the times. There is a true voice of reason.
Post a Comment
I beg you to read William Safire's column today in the times. There is a true voice of reason.
