[johnfrink]

Glenn Reynolds describes the amendment thusly:

"a pointless exercise driven by social conservatives to fire up their base."

Indeed.

[jwalsh07]

Well if thats what Glenn says, what the hay, call off the debate right now. I mean after all Glenn said what he said.

By the way, who the heck is Glenn Reynolds?

[rhema]

Reynolds, whom you quoted, continues: "If the amendment fails, as expected, isn't that going to be read as a defeat for the anti-gay-marriage folks, and as implicit permission for states to go ahead? It seems to me that it will be (which is fine with me, since I'm okay on gay marriage), but that makes me wonder why anti-gay-marriage folks are doing this. Am I missing something, or are they being played for suckers?

Acolytes for gay marriage have learned journalistic newspeak well from their sisters in the keep-abortion-ubiquitous movement; the preferred adjectives are the Orwellian "anti-choice" and "anti-gay-marriage." Both camps of liberals try vainly to obfuscate the obvious: the vast preponderance of Americans disapproves of most abortions and of gay marriage and is not at all chary about fighting to preserve innocent life and traditional marriage. Let the liberals fulminate; we won't be cowed into silence or submission by the crowd that champions glandular legislation.