[backtothestreets]

Here's how Congress defines hate crimes:

" a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person." It is directed at persons because of a particular characteristic- race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, & disability."

Has the homosexual community selected marriage as the instrument to attack "because of the actual or perceived... sexual orientation of any person (in this case heterosexuals)? Is the attack "directed at persons because of a particular characteristic-... religion, sexual orientation" (that again being heterosexuals following religious doctrine)?

A Constitutional Amendment may be necessary, but I've no qualms in stating my objections to such an amendment when other avenues may be present.

I am not an attorney, and know of no conservative activists law firms, but do know they exist. Might the "hate crime" approach work?

[little jeremiah]

There are such firms, here's a couple - Rutherford Institute (I know someone who filed a suit with their help and won - it was about freedom of expression or religion, he posted conservative cartoons at his desk, or maybe it was letters to the editor), the ACLJ - American Center for Law and Justice (I think that's right), and Scott Lively and Richard Ackerman have one, they are great. Can't remember their name at the moment.

I'm sure there are more as well. It's a wide open field.