[Piquaboy]

The reason that I don't care for this particular ammendment is that it takes to long. This perversion needs to be brought to a stop as soon as possible. Like maybe enforcing laws already on the books.

[sr4402]

Hi cvq3842,

I agree with you, folks are missing whats behind this gy marriage movement. They don't see the impact on children and the perversity it will spread across this nation. It would make the Holocaust pale in comparison. But you might want to post in Campaign Central at this is news/activism and a news article is required. You might want to find an news article that references what you are talking about and put your comments after it to gain attention.

Good hunting.

SR

[King Black Robe]

In our relativist world, one persons rights expansion is another persons ban. In other words: only one side can win. Some things are mutually exclusive. If we do not define marriage clearly, then we have banned a clear definition of marriage; or put differently, we have banned the traditional view of marriage. Even if some places allow it, the federal view would be that marriage does not matter enough to defend its traditional meaning.

All the left has done is exactly what I have described. We promote an amendment to DEFINE marriage as it has been defined by every human civilization that has ever existed (it took the nutcases of today to decide it needed redefining from its clear correlation to natural design) and they have decide to REDEFINE our amendment. Call them the redefinition patrol. Of course, defining marriage with clarity (again, something never needed until the redefiners came along) could be construed as banning absolutely ANYTHING that does not fit the definition. Maybe it's the BAN POLYGAMY AMENDMENT. It could be called the BAN INTER-SPECIES AMENDMENT. Anything really.

We've got to start calling these jokers on their symantic games. They've taken their relativism to new heights. Now they can't even find the meaning of long understood words -- so much so that the rational among us must promote defining constitutional amendments. It's pitiful that it has come to this.

Let's just accuse them of wanting to ban dictionaries.

[King Black Robe]

In many ways judges have the most power of all over us. Their rulings are final but for grand and difficult actions like constitutional amendments and judicial impeachments. They do not answer to voters (most of them). When they do, frequently they can't even talk about their views during their campaigns. That's why it is so VITAL to our government of the people, by the people, and for the people that judges do not get away with legislating from the bench. When they do, the people and their representatives have little recourse.

[leprechaun9]

When anarchy is permitted, and encouraged to spread across the country, with limited opposition from the law enforcement agencies, why does anyone believe that those same anarchists would follow a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT?

[Consort]

At this point in time, it looks like the bad guys are going to win this one.