The Gull Reef Club

Recent Comments:

12/23/2008 · 2:13 pm· Eeypre · Death Pool 2008
Well I picked Studs Terkel. The other nine survived my picking them just fine. Good job nifty... | Read More

12/3/2008 · 9:20 am· Mike · Thankfully (for Posterity’s sake)
Just to expand a bit... We typically make a dessert using apples. Last year it was whole roasted... | Read More

11/29/2008 · 10:20 am· nemov · SNL - a curiosity
Fred Armisen is my favorite and probably the most talented person on the show.... | Read More

11/26/2008 · 3:51 pm· Gina · It Begins
You're making me hungry and I've been trying to be so good in anticipation of tomorrow... BTW,... | Read More

11/18/2008 · 8:12 pm· Mike · SNL - a curiosity
I don't like him at all. He's just not funny. His "digital shorts" are not filmed on Saturday... | Read More

7/12/2004

Filed under: — Jaime @ 10:15 pm

I think this Marriage Amendment may be a bit overhyped.

ABC News reports, “The only vote likely to occur now is a procedural one scheduled for Wednesday aimed at forcing the Senate to act on the amendment. Republicans, who had already conceded they lacked the two-thirds majority or 67 votes needed to advance a constitutional amendment, would have to get 60 votes to go on to a vote on the issue itself.” (Dems Reject Senate GOP Bid on Gay Marriage)

I’m going to hold off on the second email for now and wait to see if this picks up any real momentum.

More on S.J. RES.40

Filed under: — Jaime @ 7:04 pm

One email down, one to go. The vote is Wednesday…or so I heard from my new friend Government Mule over at America’s Debate. It’s hard to tell from the Senate’s website since they don’t seem to be too keen on keeping the electorate informed on their schedules.

So here is my first email to Miller. My second email will go to Chambliss & I’ll get it done after dinner.

Hello Senator Miller-

In reviewing S.J. RES.40 I found that you are a co-sponsor to this Amendment. I was disturbed to learn that you would support such an unconstitutional proposal.

I have one simple question for you and I hope you find an opportunity to respond. How do you justify S.J. RES.40 as being in conformity with the 14th amendment which states in pertinent part, “No state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” ?

I appreciate your consideration in this matter and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Jaime **********
Savannah, GA

Of course I really wanted to ask how he justified government recognition of ANY marriage under the 14th, but I have my doubts about whether anyone in the Senate has the capacity to keep their attention tuned to one person for very long.

And for those of you not keeping score, S.J. RES.40 is the Federal Marriage Amendment. Look it up if you need more info - and if you do, why do you bother even reading my journal? ;)

The Gull Reef Club