[Antoninus]

This is mute,the SCOTUS has made the decision on the Constitutionality of this issue,any new law will be overturned.

Uh, 30 second education...

We aren't calling for a mere "law," but a constitutional amendment. Such an amendment becomes part of the Constitution and CAN NOT be overturned by the Supreme Court. In fact, they are bound to defend it.

[PhiKapMom]

Exactly! A lot of half empty glass people around here tonight! You are so right SCOTUS cannot overturn a Constitutional amendment! I am ready to go gather signatures here in OK tomorrow if necessary!

Let's put the cards on the table on which Party is going to stand up for Marriage!

[mdittmar]

Uh, 30 second education...

Ain't gonna happen.

The Constitution of the United States
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

[The Red Zone]

We aren't calling for a mere "law," but a constitutional amendment. Such an amendment becomes part of the Constitution and CAN NOT be overturned by the Supreme Court. In fact, they are bound to defend it.

However, we've seen what they can do with a clause they want to find in the Constitution. Such as the cancerous commerce clause gripping its slimy tentacles around anything with the remotest touch upon commerce between the states, or the "right to privacy" in Roe v. Wade and now in Lawrence. Or what they can do with clauses they don't like, such as the "shall not be infringed" of the 2nd Amendment. How do we know that this Frist Amendment won't be greeted with SCOTUS eyes that read it with the implied modifier "only on alternate Wednesdays"?