Replies

Today's ruling is far more serious than I originally thought. There's no easy way to stop it from becoming the law of the entire nation, and maybe no feasible hard way, either.

I've been trying to spread the word on the process going on in Mass for a couple of years now. I saw it coming after Birmingham refused to allow a vote. Nobody listened but I did get accused of crying wolf quite a bit.

I think the only solution is a Constitutional Amendment and the process should start soon.

O'Connor is totally unreliable, Kennedy is stuck with his Lawrence ramblings and they have 4 sure votes to cite the full faith and credit clause. They will get either Kennedy, most likely, or O'Connor.

SCOTUS is no hope.

#####I've been trying to spread the word on the process going on in Mass for a couple of years now. I saw it coming after Birmingham refused to allow a vote. Nobody listened but I did get accused of crying wolf quite a bit.#####

Yep! And I remember when the sodomy ruling came down, and a lot of "conservatives" on here defended the ruling on the grounds that it expanded "liberty". Some people tried to warn them that that ruling would lead to a lot of mischief, but that argument was likewise considered to be crying wolf. Not surprisingly, though, Margaret Marshall cited that ruling in her edict legalizing gay marriage in Massachusetts.

There seems to always be a block of conservatives who are too blind to see the obvious even when it's headed straight for them. I guarantee you that a percentage of the conservatives here will oppose the federal marriage amendment as unnecessary, an overreaction, a violation of state's rights, etc. And they'll hold onto that belief right up until the moment their state's marriage law is voided by an activist U.S. Supreme Court hell-bent on redefining marriage and imposing that redefinition on all the states. Then, it'll be too late, and any talk about state's rights on this issue will be a joke.

A US Constitutional amendment would have to be introduced immediately and be backed by a huge upswelling of public support.

I'd have to do some research to see how fast a constitutional amendment became law in modern times, but I don't think it's ever been fast. For example, the Texas legislature isn't even scheduled to meet again until 2005 (We'd call a special session to ratify this amendment, I'd think).

I think the best strategy is to get the US Supreme Court to undo this, because it could happen faster than the Constitutional amendment process. But I'd start both efforts RFN.