[Cathryn Crawford]

Will this mean that sensible folks in California will be required to acknowledge the legitimacy of the crazy marriages that the screwballs in Texas might allow?

I see your anti-Texas bias coming through again, Scenic. You'd better watch that - don't you want to be seen as fair and even handed? :-)

I see your point; but I still don't think that every problem must be solved by something so serious as a Constitutional amendment. If we must regulate this at a federal level, why can't we use a regular statute to do so?

[Scenic Sounds]

If we must regulate this at a federal level, why can't we use a regular statute to do so?

I see. You just don't cotton to monkeying with the Constitution for this kind of thing, I guess. I suppose you'd also feel the same way about my proposal for a Constitutional amendment to protect our right to smoke in restaurants, wouldn't you? Just be honest and admit it!!

And, I have no anti-Texas bias, Cathryn!!!! Actually, I happen to think that Texas is a fine little state.

Can I go play golf now? ;-)

[BlackElk]

Because of the improvident (at least in this instance) Full Faith and Credit clause, the pro-lavender "marriage" looney tunes of such as the Massachusetts Supreme Court can unduly interfere with the right of sensible states to ban this abomination.

Because of abortion, lavender "rights", bans on prayer, attacks on religion, the original constitution is beginning to wear thin and to show its age rather than its staying power. Amendments, including definition of marriage and strong restraints upon judicial usurpation and judicial legislation, are necessary but will probably not be enacted so we continue to degenerate as a nation in thrall to leftist special interest groups. We need a constitution not a libertarian playpen.

[Zack Nguyen]

If we must regulate this at a federal level, why can't we use a regular statute to do so?

Because the Supreme Court, in its present make-up, would declare it unconstitutional.