[weegee]

I thought there was no homosexual agenda. Why are we seeing a rash of lawsuits trying to push the boundaries of "homosexual rights" since the Supreme Court's activist decision on homosexual sodomy.

[Elle Bee]

just watch how many of these 'demonstrations' pop up around the country

.

[G2R]

The gay agenda is more ominous than you might think. They're actually trying to gain the same rights as everyone else. We simply cannot allow people to live their lives according to their own conscience. It is the state's responsibility to step in and regulate private, consentual, non-destructive behavior by offering benefits to those who subscribe to our religious sensibilities and denying benefits to those who choose to think for themslves.

The right of governmental and private discrimination must be preserved (but only if that discrimination is targeted against minorities, women or gays; discrimination against white males must never happen). All hail the Moral Nanny State!

[AmishDude]

So, so stupid. By ratcheting up this issue all at once, they're guaranteeing a backlash. The lawsuit in MA was smart, get it in one state -- one that can't amend their constitution quickly -- and get a couple of months of legally married gays. Make the state declare their marriage null and void.

But now, they're just forcing a Constitutional crisis and now there will be a marriage amendment.

[longtermmemmory]

Yesterday was some day all homosexuals were supposed to ask for a marriage license in anticipation of May 17.

This is part of the Human Rights Coalition coordated program. This was actually supposed to happen in 1996-7 but the Hawaii rapid amendment to their constitution broke it. Then Vermont botched their efforts with civil unions but not marriage. Mass was selected (I would be also including private conversations with certain high judges. But right now only speculation) due to their slow amendment process.

Durint the May 17 to 2006 vote window. They will have people from across the US go there to set up the FFC cases. They probably already have select the judges they want.

Imagine how much money is going to be spent on this issue.

A Federal Constitutional Amendment will shut the whole issue down.