For republicans ONLY!

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2012 2:37 PM GMT
    "As a gay American citizen, the federal government offers me zero, zilch, nada, null access to the federal rights that all married couples have," Willingham said on the couple's Web page. "This is not an issue of separate but equal. There are no separate federal rights for married gay couples. There are no rights at all. This is not a front of the bus, back of the bus issue. This is the federal government telling us to get the hell off of the bus."

    President Barack Obama has called for a legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, and while Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee last year voted to send a repeal to the full Senate floor, the measure is considered as having no chance of getting passed by the Republican-led House.


    This is from an article today at CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/22/us/california-gay-deportation/index.html?hpt=hp_bn2


    Can you ANSWER why this will never pass in the 'republican controlled' house?

    C'mon, give it your BEST shot.. Lets hear your 'conservative' answer.
    BTW, this isn't a 'bait'.. this is factual and it is a stinging point for you to explain away.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19136

    Mar 23, 2012 3:00 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said

    Can you ANSWER why this will never pass in the 'republican controlled' house?




    "Never" is a very long time. We don't really know for sure if it will not pass until it gets voted on. Maybe the house vote will surprise everybody. Think positive.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2012 3:45 PM GMT
    Well I'm not a republican but I'm also not a democrat. I will however take a poke at it or at least share my thoughts...

    To me it's very clear... PASSING SUCH A BILL WOULD COST MORE VOTES THEN IT WOULD GAIN.

    But lets not just blame one group of bastards. If the democrats really wanted to get it done, why didn't they do it when they controlled the house & senate by majority and the office of president?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2012 4:11 PM GMT
    joe_diesel1 saidWell I'm not a republican but I'm also not a democrat. I will however take a poke at it or at least share my thoughts...

    To me it's very clear... PASSING SUCH A BILL WOULD COST MORE VOTES THEN IT WOULD GAIN.

    But lets not just blame one group of bastards. If the democrats really wanted to get it done, why didn't they do it when they controlled the house & senate by majority and the office of president?

    The Democrats did not have a sufficient (super) majority in the Senate to overcome a Republican filibuster in 2009-10, and other procedural hurdles the Republicans used. Despite the lie you will hear repeated ad nauseam by a certain RJ member, the Dems were blocked from many legislative actions they sought, by the Party of No, because that's how the Senate works.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2012 4:47 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    joe_diesel1 saidWell I'm not a republican but I'm also not a democrat. I will however take a poke at it or at least share my thoughts...

    To me it's very clear... PASSING SUCH A BILL WOULD COST MORE VOTES THEN IT WOULD GAIN.

    But lets not just blame one group of bastards. If the democrats really wanted to get it done, why didn't they do it when they controlled the house & senate by majority and the office of president?

    The Democrats did not have a sufficient (super) majority in the Senate to overcome a Republican filibuster in 2009-10, and other procedural hurdles the Republicans used. Despite the lie you will hear repeated ad nauseam by a certain RJ member, the Dems were blocked from many legislative actions they sought, by the Party of No, because that's how the Senate works.


    Thanks for the response! Agree that 57 senate seats is a few shy to "force" the issue through (even with 2 additional independents). I would have at least liked to have seen it presented during a more favorable time period.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2012 4:54 PM GMT
    A favorable time period? We were in the throws of an economic crash and multiple wars. While I'd like to see DoMA repealed (it's most likely not for the same reason as everyone else, I'd like to see government removed from marriage altogether), there were other things that needed immediate attention.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2012 5:03 PM GMT
    ConfederateGhost saidA favorable time period? We were in the throws of an economic crash and multiple wars. While I'd like to see DoMA repealed (it's most likely not for the same reason as everyone else, I'd like to see government removed from marriage altogether), there were other things that needed immediate attention.


    Oh agree, plenty of things needed & still need done & undone. That being said, I don't think any of our well compensated (note I did not just limit it to $) elected federal officials are overworked. Anyone care to speculate how many hours per year they devote to their elected position?