Conrad/Dorgan Vote For Gay Marriage

  •  June 8, 2006

Hmm…

In 2004 the voters of North Dakota approved a constitutional amendment stating that marriage is between one man and one woman. Support for this amendment was 73%-27%, better than 2-1.
Today the Senators that claim to represent North Dakota voted against a similar proposed amendment to the US Constitution. More proof that they do not represent North Dakota. These guys have no respect for North Dakota.

That isn’t exactly representing your constituency, guys.

Tags:


«
»
  • http://www.ski-blog.com/ Justin B

    Doesn’t the Defense of Marriage Act already cover the ground of the Constitutional Amendment? Why not let the DOMA play out to the SCOTUS and let them set precedent by upholding the provision that states that individual states do not have to recognize a marriage that violates their state law?

    I don’t know why Dorgan or Conrad should tell Massachusetts what to do. Just make sure individual states have the right to define what constitutes a marriage within their state. DOMA did that.

    What the Federal Marriage Amendment seeks to do is dictate to the people of Mass what their state can and can’t do. On principle, I believe the Tenth Amendment was intended purely to not do that. As long as the DOMA exempts states from having to honor a Mass marriage under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, let Mass do whatever their voters decide. But the voters in damned near every other state have spoken and if gay marriage and abortion on demand are what Mass wants, it sends a stark picture of what the Democratic Party is all about. That is more valuable for national politics than trying to get Mass to stop marrying gays.

    And if the issue mattered enough to people, Dorgan and Conrad would not be in the Senate, but they are, meaning something else takes precedence for the people of ND. When ND sends them packing, get back to me on the outrage that people show on Gay Marriage. About the time the SCOTUS forces states to honor Mass’s marriages and offer gay marriages themselves or voters care enough to send incumbents who voted against it packing, the Federal Amendment will get passed. Until then, it is unnecessary and people just don’t care enough.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    I think the concern is that a federal judge can ignore the wishes of the states that have banned gay marriage. In fact I think they have.

    On the other hand it’ll be hard for a judge to ignore the defense of marriage to the US Constitution.

  • Melissa

    Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad don’t understand that they are in the Senate to represent their constituents rather than the Democratic party. But it isn’t new now, so why do they keep getting voted into the Senate? Just because they have high positions and help farmers out?

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    I think this is an issue that’s not complicated where they should have listened.

    Hopefully we can make the voters realize the disrespect we’re getting out of Washington.

  • http://peatbog.net/ Sphagnum

    On the other, other hand, we do live in a republic in which we elect representatives to make their best judgments, not necessarily what 51+% of their constituents want.

    Exactly. I don’t think the point of the post is to say they aren’t doing their jobs but maybe to suggest they aren’t the best representitives for their state. Something the voters need to keep in mind next election cycle…

  • Anonomisly

    i will get on reading but can you please answer the following question for me:

    how is the state legislature selecting senator for their contituents as oppose to the constituents choosing their senators themselves suppose to better assure senators represent their contituents?

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

    how is the state legislature selecting senator for their contituents as oppose to the constituents choosing their senators themselves suppose to better assure senators represent their contituents?

    The House of Representatives are there to represent the state’s constituents. The Senate is supposed to represent the state, not be another House of Representatives.

  • Anonomisly

    docdave, I’m really interested on your reasoning why having the state legislatures selecting Senators would better insure they represent their contituents. Wouldn’t that be better guaranteed by the constituents directly choosing their Senetors, as oppose to indirectly through their state legislatures?

    …having the state legislatures select for the contituents (as oppose to the contituents doing it themself…

    And wouldn’t gerrymandering entering into the choosing of our Senators distort it even more?

  • Anonomisly

    I would think direct selection by voters would be a better guaranteed, but I’m open minded and anxious to know what the reasoning behind comment is.

    Come on, DD! spill it –the suspence is killing me!

  • robert108

    “What the Federal Marriage Amendment seeks to do is dictate to the people of Mass what their state can and can’t do.”

    Absolutely false. The TMA codifies what the institution of marriage has always been throughout history: A heterosexual institution. It is also the will of the vast majority of Americans, and probably the vast majority of people in the world. I know that 1.5 billion Muslims agree that marriage is exclusively heterosexual.

  • WETBACK
  • dave

    The 2004 vote was on amending our state constitution. This afternoon’s vote was on amending our country’s constitution. There’s no conflict.

  • http://horriblethoughts.blogspot.com/ JeremyB

    On the other, other hand, we do live in a republic in which we elect representatives to make their best judgments, not necessarily what 51+% of their constituents want.

    Not that this makes it okay to ignore constituents or is to say that these two made the right choice.

  • Puzzlefeet

    Yeah, R108, Slavery was also supported by the masses.

  • http://www.ski-blog.com/ Justin B

    No, those 1.5 Billion Muslims also allow polygamy. And the FMA defines it as one man and one woman.

    Are you familiar with the DOMA from like 7-8 years ago? All the Feds need to do is recognize the autonomy of the individual states and that one state does not have to recognize gay marriages from another state.

    Robert, why should you be allowed to tell another state what laws they can and can’t have in a matter that is allocated by the states by the Tenth Amendment? Let me guess, because you think social policy should be determined nationally as opposed to on a state by state basis. Read the Tenth Amendment and the Constitution and decide if marriage and the definition of it falls into Federal jurisdiction or state. It belongs to the state.

    Just exempt states from the Full Faith and Credit Clause which the DOMA already did. Let the law be challenged and let the SCOTUS speak on the matter.

  • Puzzlefeet

    Yeah, you don’t get your way, so let’s change the rules.

  • sign

    Is focus on the family already running this ad?
    */


    Recent Comments

    Powered by Disqus

    Blog Advice and Support
    Installs and Upgrades
    Theme Modifications
    Custom Plugins
    Theme Design
    Conversions and Relocations
    Hacked Site Recovery
    Mobile Apps Development