Check out the Dennis Schmidt for Senate Website today, because it might be gone tomorrow
GO check out the Dennis Schmidt for Senate Website today, since it could be gone tomorrow if he loses the primary.Dennis who has been a suprising challenger for JP Duniphan in the senate race has come on like a hard charger and is posting a very serious challenge. This race is looked at as a possible sleeper upset for Duniphan, one of the founding members of the Mainstream Coalition.
Although the website seems to be devoid of any issue oriented critique that has driven this campaign. For instance, He's been hitting her on her vote for 2005's HJR 1001, the definition of marriage act. And in her advertising in response, Duniphan claims the truth is that she voted for the defense of marriage bill. (the truth is she was a big no vote on 1001)
Anyway, check it out before you miss your chance.
Comments
If JP voted against gay marriage, what's the citation?
Sounds to me like you're trying to muddy the water when the issue is crystal clear.
But she's not an activist who goes around trying to change the constitution all the time.
The part about "between a man and a woman" was added in 1996; a cursory google could tell you that. The LRC's past sessions only go back to 1997, but J.P. was there in 1996 and I don't see any reason why she would lie about her vote. If you refuse to take her word, I'm sure you can call the LRC (605.773.3251) and they could get you an answer pretty quickly.
it would seem that it's possible that JP might have voted for the measure when she was in the house, but she did vote against placing it on the ballot last year at the pinnacle of the Mainstream movement.
If I was campaigning against her (which I am not) I'd call it more of a flip flop than an outright position statement one way or the other.
Obviously, there are many people who didn't pay much attention during high school civics and would probably have a tough time seeing the difference; politicians love to take advantage of that kind of ignorance.
Hmmmmm. Can that mean....?
With the definition of marriage only in law, our state Supreme Court can rule it unconstitutional by having only 3 activist judges voting to ban it.
However, if it is in our State Constitution than our Sup Court cannot ban it as unconstitutional.
A Federal Court can still do that, and in some instances have, including Nebraska's which had passed with 71% of the votes. That's why we need the Fed. Am. too.