[longtermmemmory]

Will post the contacts to support the FMA.

This is going to be an issue in 2004 and Dean is the poster child for homosexual special rights.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

I too believe that gratuitously amending the Constitution is a dangerous thing to do.

The phrase "unintended consequences" comes to mind.

The gay marriage thing can be handled politically and legislatively, just as the Constitution intended.

The more amendments you add, the more diluted and convoluted the Constitution becomes.

[King Black Robe]

So the HRC thinks it can sue in state and federal courts, bypassing legislatures, to redefine culture for all, but we cannot use the federal and state legislative process to stop them? Hmmm...

The problem is, courts are ignoring the clear intent of written and established law in support of radical agendas. All the FMA will do is put the power back in the hands of the people.

Nearly every political win the queers have acheived has come from the hands of the courts. The people have had no say. The FMA will be long and difficult to pass. If it does, then the people have spoken and representative gov't has been restored.

Interestingly, the queers think the constitution, which cannot be bothered with trivia such as this, currently supports their every whim. It's time for the people to define those shadows that have been showing up in the imaginations of power-hungry judges.

[MikeJ75]

They ignore that Marriage is now a federal issue. They ignore that the FMA returns the issue to the states.

The FMA would not return the issue of marriage to the states. To the contrary, the FMA would prohibit state legislatures from legislating in this area. Don't believe everything you read in the media. Look it up for yourself.

If you have not had a chance to study the proposed amendment, you can read the text of it at allianceformarriage.org (it has a pop up; don't give them your email address), which is the website of the group promoting the amendment.

[longtermmemmory]

This was broadcast again on Rush. Is this being done to give Rush a financial incentive to not talk about homosexual marriage or the constitutional amendment. Whether it is true or not, it gives the impression that Rush is not adressing the issue.