Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: zbigreddogz
I understand the problems with handling it at a state level, and if it doesn't work, i.e. if the courts mandate it, then I would support a Constitutional Amendment.

We are just going to disagree tacticly. I think that once the courts rule, the horse is out of the barn and isn't going back in. I probably would be loathe to support a Constitutional Amendment at that point knowing it would be far too late. You'd have sympathetic "married" couples to sway public opinion and then the issue would be do churches who not perform gay weddings lose their tax exempt status.

I'm for playing shut down defense NOW and not needing a Hail Mary pass in the fourth quarter.

34 posted on 11/22/2006 11:10:03 AM PST by NeoCaveman (Have you thanked the rich person who subsidized your share of taxation today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]


To: NeoCaveman

I have trouble beliving that would be the case. Gay Marriage bans have passed in every single state they have been on the ballot, including blue states.

Frankly, if you ARE right, then I don't see what the point of trying to pass a Constitutional Amendment is anyway, before or after, because it won't pass. They can and would use the same tactics as they would to keep it from passing before hand then afterwards.


37 posted on 11/22/2006 11:13:17 AM PST by zbigreddogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson