[davidosborne]

the problem is that when these groups make it a "civil rights" issue instead of a moral one (Protection of the definition of marriage).... the constitution needs to address the fact that there is a difference.... and there is a difference... this would settle the issue and we can move on rather than debate this forever....

[backtothestreets]

I've a question to be answered before I buy into the amendment process. The Constitution states "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour..."

The Constitution Party has a rather commonsense remedy to the problems arising within the federal judiciary, and it does not require amending the Constitution. They support a support having a law passed in Congress that would have all federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, reviewed every four years for "good Behavior".

Such a bill would require a simple majority in Congress to pass and present the bill to the President for signature to become law. This is unlike the two-thirds of Congress approval, AND two-thirds of states required for the amendment process. Why should this plausible solution not be attempted? It could correct the entire federal judiciary on all matters, not just marriage.

I've no qualms in stating my support for the Constitution Party position as they are far and away more conservative then Democrats and Republicans.