[goldstategop]

The Supreme Court held state prohibitions of sodomy in Lawrence unconstitutional. I think it was Antonin Scalia who said any law that stands on a moral standards test can't survive. Or any law that reflects an anti-gay animus. It needs to be recalled a decade ago, the Supremes took on themselves to nullify a decision on the part of the good people of Colorado to ban PREFERENTIAL treatment for gays, adopted through a popular vote. Nunnh-Uh, can't do that, can't decide certain groups can't have preferential treatment. And we've been going downhill since then, socially speaking, ever since.

[lugsoul]

Now you are just playing misdirection. You know, 1st of all, that there is a major difference between the criminal laws in Lawrence and sanctioning marriage. 2nd, you didn't have a Federal statute banning sodomy.

You have a Federal statute that does exactly what you want. The only reason you have expressed for an amendment is that the statute MIGHT get stricken down by a court. It hasn't yet.

Back to my original premise - Having legislators pass laws that ARE NOT PRESENTLY NEEDED FOR ANY REASON is not, by any stretch, conservative.