[tpaine]

And for over 200 years, the entire country has been wrong about marriage. So says that paragon of conservative virtue, tpaine. Some conservative.

Nope, you invented that 'saying', Willy.
-- And I'll match my constitutional conservatism against yours anyday, anyway.. Put your big mouth on the line. Make your accusation.

I'll make my accusation simple. You are not conservative.

Yep, that's 'simple', in the idiotic sense .
Backatcha, -- you don't honor our constitution, - as you want to change it.

Sorry tpaine, too cute by half. I want to follow the proscribed method for enacting a change to the standards of our society- following the constitution as written by the founders.

We have no constitutional "standards" for marriage, nor do we need any..

You want to revel in the changes 'interpreted' by the SCOTUS in Lawrence and the Massachusettes Supreme Court. I want to conserve what has been for over 200 years. You want what you always want, which is the erosion of society in the name of a sort of liberty which is really the lack of freedom for people to arrange their communities as they see fit.

You are simply ranting about what you imagine I want.

--Back up your bull or take your flaming BS to the backroom where it belongs.

[William McKinley]

tpaine: And I'll match my constitutional conservatism against yours anyday, anyway

tpaine: The imposition on the nation of the decision of a few liberal activist judges. Not constitutional.

McKinley: Prevent the judges from doing so by using the methods delineated in article V. Constitutional.

tpaine: Marriage should be whoever wants to be married. Not conservative.

McKinley: Marriage should be between a man and a woman, just like it has always been. Conservative.

We have no constitutional "standards" for marriage, nor do we need any..

We didn't before. We do now, thanks to some judges in Massachusettes.

You are simply ranting about what you imagine I want.

Nope. You are opposing a constitutional amendment, which means you want the status quo. The status quo right now is that liberal activist judges in one state can impose on the entire nation a revised standard of marriage. That is not constitutional, but the paragon of constitutional conservatism is fine with this because it suits his whims of not having any standards for marriage, a position which is not conservative.

Back up your bull or take your flaming BS to the backroom where it belongs

Why should this be taken to the backroom? I have made a single 'accusation' and did so at your demand- that you are not conservative. This is not a flame. It is a clear conclusion based on the postions you take.