[Dan from Michigan]

They can't handle the 60-40 butt kicking they got, so they go to the courts. Figures.

[SandRat]

[ET(end tyranny)]

I thought we went through the proper channels in getting this passed. Now the courts want to over turn the will of the people. Can't say we didn't know this would be coming.

[RKBA Democrat]

Oh. Speaking of pride, it's time to take back the week: G.L.B.T. Pride Week (that's God-Loving Benedictine Transparishionals)

[Tanniker Smith]

But we don't need a federal amendment because it's a state's rights issue.

</sarcasm>

TS

[cripplecreek]

You would think a 60-40 vote by the people would carry some kind of weight wouldn't you?

[sgtbono2002]

Its all about money. Always has been.

[grids]

Here's a rejoinder to the homos regarding the "equal protection" argument:

"Confirming electorally that marriage is between one man and one woman is not unequal protection. There is no discrimination here, Ms. Lesbian. Marriage is between one man and one woman, and if you want to marry a man, no one will stop you. Mr. Queer, if you find some nice young woman to marry, you are free to do so. No discrimination, you are both equally protected in your desire to marry."

I know, I know, this won't really quash the "equal protection" argument to which the homos are lashing themselves, but I get a little joy out of saying it to myself when I read about these folks.

[Kuksool]

Any chance this lawsuit would help Kevin Butler's campaign. He could make the case for aprroving strict constructionist judges to the federal bench.

[TMSuchman]

I have a fear that liberals are trying to provoke another civil war just to get the un in here to settle things, & at the rate that things are going it is going to happen soon! I hate to think such things but can anyone show me where I am wrong in my theory? It does not matter what WE the people say the courts will just tell us serfs what we are going to do & say and that is just that & we'll love it too!