The Alliance for Marriage and the Federal Marriage Amendment

http://www.allianceformarriage.org/reports/030304/030304.htm

[longtermmemmory]

sorry 37 states have DOMAS!

http://www.cga.state.ct.us/2002/olrdata/jud/rpt/2002-R-0957.htm

I can not testify to this source but it does give some break downs.

[kms61]

According to the title of another thread on this subject, this should be the "#1 priority." That doesn't sound like multitasking, it sounds like bumping everything else down the list. And I think that's absurd.

I don't personally know any gays, and frankly I couldn't care less who marries whom. What I do see as threats are such things as my job being outsourced to India, somebody trying to fly a plane into my building, and the North Koreans trying to drop an atom bomb on me. THOSE things worry me. Gays aren't even on my radar screen.

[longtermmemmory]

http://www.cga.state.ct.us/2002/olrdata/jud/rpt/2002-R-0957.htm

[AntiGuv]

Umm.. That proposed Constitution is inherently invalid. Article V of the U.S. Constitution expressly states that no State shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate [two Senators each] without its consent. That cannot be amended.

Aside from that trivial matter, that monstrosity is an abomination!!

[longtermmemmory]

clinton signed the Federal Defense of marriage act. He had to due to public outrage.

I venture to guess even these poll numbers do not reflect the moral outrage at homosexuals. (you are right there is no "gay" or "lesbian" they are all just homosexual practitioners.) An illness which needs treatment.

[Antoninus]

Gays aren't even on my radar screen.

Good for you. Don't let the door knob hit you ...

You can thank us later on when we get this thing through without you, and build partnerships with Black and Hispanic voters and groups who are conservative but normally vote Democrat.

[longtermmemmory]

its just a buzz kill to try and scare conservatives from mobilizing to stop the attack on the institution of marriage.

[Reagan Man]

>>>Gays aren't even on my radar screen.

Obviously.

[AntiGuv]

I do recall that those calling for a Constitutional Convention got very close - something like 35 or 36 of the necessary 38 State legislature applications. Then, several of the States withdrew their [once-thought symbolic] endorsements when it looked as if the push would succeed. Including those states as well as a few others that passed motions afterward, their would've been 39 states total (this has been litigated, iirc).

Anyhow, I seem to recall that the foremost driving issues were taxation & deficits.

[templar]

I do recall that those calling for a Constitutional Convention got very close - something like 35 or 36 of the necessary 38 State legislature applications.

D*mn. I started fighting tooth and nail against it here in Colorado as soon as I heard about it, but I didn't realize that it had gotten anywhere near that close. 3 more States signing on and we would likely be living under a different Constitution today!

[Sandy]

Gays aren't even on my radar screen.

I'm with you there. If more people would worry about keeping their government in check rather than begging the government to keep the guy next door in check, this country would be a lot better off. This hysterical desperation is almost embarrassing to watch.

[Jeff Gordon]

This is an issue for the states, not the feds. How can we take the stand that abortion, sodomy and such are state's right issues and then turn around and support this?

[AntiGuv]

3 more States signing on and we would likely be living under a different Constitution today!

An awful, kneejerk Constitution would be my guess..

[longtermmemmory]

This is a general welfare issue now. The USSC has taken this away from the states and put it in the federal arena.

I can't believe how many people here are sounding like nevil chamberlan. Evil must be fought on all fronts.

[First Amendment]

Are you familiar with Scott Lively? Here's a link (if I can do it right) to one of his websites:
http://www.defendthefamily.com/

Another good one with much info on homosexuality and links is this:
http://www.abidingtruth.com/

[First Amendment]

Unfortunately, we have finally entered the latter stage he describes here. But I'm going to die fighting.

Don't lose heart - I know it looks very very bad, this has been a bad week. And this weekend there have been "Perv Parades" all over. I think of it like a disease that has to run its course - the fever burns out the germs. The healing crisis - you feel worse before you feel better. I believe this SCOTUS decision is going to wake up a lot of sleepers. And the evil is taking off its mask. I think it's just getting exciting.

It's time to put on our armour - prayer - and go into battle. If we are willing, God will use His servants to do His will, and miracles may occur.

[Skywalk]

Why are you twisting my words. I'm addressing this idea of overturning any USSC rulings that a state or group of states may not like.

It's very MUCH what some have just called for on this thread and others. They are QUITE related.

It's definitely not a straw man.

[First Amendment]

All moral persons must call a spade a gosh-darned shovel by always, always using the word "homosexual" rather than some politically correct substitute.

The word "homosexual" was invented by a pederast in Germany in the late 1800's (can't remember his name, it's in the "Pink Swastika" by Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams - can be read in its entirety on www.abidingtruth.com). He wanted a word which indicate the "special community" of sodomites. So actually sodomites, queers, faggots or pederasts are more accurate. Recently in Britain there was a law passed that the word "homosexual" is too perjorative (sp?) to use, "gay" is the legally accepted word.

[First Amendment]

I don't personally know any gays, and frankly I couldn't care less who marries whom.

Gays aren't even on my radar screen.

It doesn't sound as though you have any children or even know any.