[Tim Long]

I tend to agree. I think it would be a waste to adopt an amendment that still allows civil unions. Not to mention that this is an insulting attempt to appease conservatives. Most of us are not worried about gays marrying while criminals pour over our border.

[MACVSOG68]

This is actually hilarious. The president is in political trouble and falls for this ludicrous attempt to impose federal control over an historical state responsibility. There is absolutely no threat to marriage in those states that limit it to a man and a woman; there is no threat to the Defense of Marriage Act which permits an exception to Article IV, but because some states may legalize marriage for nontraditional couples, we better stop that right now.

So now the radicals are weeping because the amendment doesn't completely outlaw homosexuality like most of them want.

Hilarious.

[RogerFGay]

The Outrage in Outrage

An Alternative to the Federal Marriage Amendment

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping.

If anyone has the offending second sentence handy, could you post it? I didn't see it in the article. Of course, civil unions are just a precourser for same sex marriage. If anyone says "I'm against same sex marriage but for civil unions" it's like saying "I'm against bestiality but sex with animals is okay".

If anyone wants on/off this pinglist, freepmail wagglebee and/or me.

BTW, rawdog is gone.

[Antoninus]

I'm in favor of the amendment as writen. If states want to circumvent the spirit of the amendment and set up "domestic partnerships" that's on the voters of that particular state. I reckon the SCOTUS would have something to say about that as well. Hopefully, Ruth Vader Ginsburg will be retired by then and replaced with a conservative.