[Graybeard58]

71% to 29% - That seems to be about the norm in states that have voted on the issue. Maybe the homosexual activists will get the message soon, that even most libs do not accept their agenda.

[Delphinium]

On February 2nd, the Idaho Senate voted 21-14 for the marriage amendment Since an amendment requires a 2/3 vote, the measure failed by a scant three votes. Idaho became the first state in the union to reject a constitutional amendment to preserve natural marriage.

Idaho is the most Republican state in the nation. Except many of the so-called Republicans are Rinos.

[zerosix]

Not so long as they control newsrooms/tv/hollywood/main line church pulpits, they will proclaim from every venue that they are being denied "Civil Rights."

The black pastors in KS came out strongly against that defense as are black pastors all over America (and finding out in the process that conservatives and even Republicans have far more in common with them than do liberals/Progressives/DemocRATS.)

[Aetius]

They've gotten the message from the people loud and clear. But that is of little concern to them, and why should it be?

You don't need the people when you have the Judiciary, and the Left has the Courts on this issue. Its just a matter of time before the Sup Court votes to impose gay marriage or civil unions nationally (the 'or civil unions' part is important since this vote proves yet again that despite what national polls say, when given a chance people will vote to ban any legal recognition of same-sex unions no matter what euphemism for 'marriage' is used to describe them).

There are a few ways to stop this:

1. Make sure the Sup Court always has at least 5 good judges -- this is impossible.

2. Pass some sort of federal Amendment that at a minimum bars the Courts from having a say in the matter -- it could happen, perhaps a Sup Court decision for gay marriage/civil unions could spur it to passage, but then again such a decision could take on a bit of momentum itself and sort change public opinion as Roe v Wade has unfortunately done.

3. The other two supposedly co-equal branches of govt could stand up the Courts and fulfill their own duty to protect the Constitution and refuse to enforce such a decision, thus rendering it void -- it'd be great, but I can't see this happening. These two inferior branches seem to enjoy bending over and taking it from the Courts, and would probably buy into some bogus and ridiculous hysteria that to defy the Courts would be the end of the Republic.

4. Congress could attempt to pass simple legislation denying the Courts jurisdiction over the matter -- the House did it last year, but the Senate has yet to take it up, but even if it passed what is to prevent the same Courts from declaring such legislation 'unconstitutional', thus leaving # 2 and 3 as the best options.