[tpaine]

We cannot allow further Amendments to our Constitution that infringe upon our individual rights.
Government has no business in dictating the terms of civil marriage between consenting adults.

Granted, our States can regulate the rules on 'uncivil marriages', [polygamy, incest, etc], -- using constitutional due process, but they can't 'ban' queers from calling themselves married, and from demanding equal tax & insurance treatment from government.

187 -tpaine-


_______________________________________________


TOUGH STOUGH wrote:
Now that activist judges in several states seem to have suddenly and incorrectly found a homosexual right to marriage and are attempting to foist homosexual marriage upon the nation, an amendment is a virtual necessity.

________________________________________________



So? -- Let the gay activists & judges "foist" their marriage claims. -- You say they have no rights on this issue? -- Ignore them. Refuse to recognize those claims in your State or County.

-- No amendment necessary.

197 tpaine


____________________________________________________


ET writes:
Naive at best.

-199-

_________________________________________________


Naive? How so?
--- States are not required to recognize the unconstitutional acts of other States, or of the federal government.

Surely, -- you can agree with me on that point?

[TOUGH STOUGH]

Homosexuals will argue that a particular state recognizes heterosexual marriages from other states and will win on those grounds.

How can they be married in one state and then move to another and not be married? States rights work with many issues but not this one.

[EternalVigilance]

How so?

You completely misunderstand the dangers posed by the radical homosexual agenda and its purveyors and underestimate their power to corrupt everything they touch.