A constitutional amendment barring gay marriage!!

(you couldn't see me winking, bob...)

Nein, winkst du?

jah, yo winko.

Less than twelve hours after conservative groups met and somewhat agreed upon language for a Constitutional Amendment to protect traditional marriage, the Massachusetts Supreme Court landed a bomb shell on the time table to pass that Amendment. The Court informed their state legislature that allowing "civil unions" for same sex couples was not enough; rather that only a state issued marriage certificate just like those issued to heterosexuals would do.

The civil union issue is now by-passed, which is a good thing for those social conservative groups who had come to agree with the President's objective to protect the word marriage while allowing civil unions for same sex couples. A high ranking Bush official promised conservative groups on Tuesday that the President would push hard for the agreed to language as soon as a major event occurred that could trigger a strong statement. When the Massachusetts Court made its final ruling that homosexual marriage would be available in that state by May 17th, the President on Wednesday made the following statement:

Today's ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is deeply troubling. Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. If activist judges insist on redefining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage.
OK then, lets do what "must be done!"First: Congressman John Hostettler's (R-IN) "Super DOMA", which would strip courts of jurisdiction in proclaiming same sex marriage, must be passed within 30 days to protect the other 49 states from the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision that takes effect May 17th. Second: The Federal Marriage Amendment must be voted out of the House and be headed to the Senate no later than May, to challenge the Senate prior to summer recess. The vote in both Houses on the FMA must come quickly and will not do so without a lot of pressure from President George W. Bush. Chairman Sensenbrenner (R-WI) of the Judiciary Committee is against constitutional amendments of any kind and also against any bill which restrains the judiciary, as does Congressman Hostettler's Super DOMA. Only a call from President Bush to Chairman Sensenbrenner will move the Super DOMA and the FMA out of his committee. That call should be made next week, not next month.

The American people are angry that a handful of Massachusetts judges have determined the moral standards of the entire nation. The time for political action is now. Contact your congressman and Senators. "The courts must be reined in!"

I think you're on the wrong forum to gain support for your views!!!

Sheesh, and some folks never saw what was wrong with separate drinking fountains...



That's a load of sh!t, if you'll excuse my English. Massachussetts judges have determined the legal standards for the state of Massachuesstts. Don't you conservative lot believe in states' rights?

Seriously, the US constitution designs structure for government and places restrictions on it. It was once amended to place restrictions on the governed -- prohibition -- with disastrous results, and another amendment was needed to fix it.


By the way...
When you cut and paste, you should identify the source.

Definitely agree. If a person doesn't identify the source, people may reasonably assume that it is HIS words. If the words are NOT HIS, the poster is guilty of plagarism.

This is key, to me. It is a state affair, marriage, it is not a religious matter.

littlek- Exactly- A couple, whether gay or straight, does not have to be married by any clergy in order to make the union legal. Religious ceremonies are simply customs that are adhered to by some people, and have nothing to do with the legal aspect of the marriage.

(It's a her, Letty, and if you compare that to her other posts... well, you can reasonably conclude that it's a cut and paste job.)

Back to the question:

Should there be a constitutional amendment barring gay marriages...


...No, but there should be a constitutional amendment barring people with IQ's under 90 from being president.

Anti gay marriage spoofs
anti gay marriage spoofs

http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0348/fiore.php

so, will the dork propose a federal amendment to ban gay marriage......?

I think he'll try. It'll be political suicide but I don't think he's bright enough to see that...the dork that is..... lol

It's such an important issue along with steroids -- it all does quality him for Supreme Dorkdom.