You make some good points. Though, while I’ll sure take a Constitutional Amendment, to clarify for all these idjuts, none is really needed. As I pointed out above, protecting the sanctity of marriage nationally, federally, has a long history in America. There are several states in the West who were not allowed into the federal union until they swore off plural marriage.
Legally and respectfully, we are way beyond that.
We already have state bars and the american bar association groups (know because I have been there) which are saying it is only a matter of time before they affirmativly establish homosexual marriage as a constitutional right and thus superceed all laws. This is already in state courts via immigration and taxation based suits funded by groups such as HRC or ACLU.
They also ARE demanding civil unions be recognized AS MARRIAGE in states that do not have civil unions.
History is nothing to an activist judge other than an excuse to impose their personal view.
Remember the Judge who literally WROTE homosexual marriage into the Massachusets state law was copying VERBATIM an ABA funded Domestic Relations model law.
Fred Thompson had better dump the weasel words if he expects money and ethusiastic support.
If he is going to weasel like a guiliani or romeny, then his presense is irrelevant.
FredT is a big time believer in federalism. On this issue I part ways with FredT. IMO, the best option available for assuring the sanctity of marriage is upheld throughout America, would require a Constitutional amendment. And no, I’m no “idjut”. Make marriage between one man and one woman the law of the land and ban all other attempts to subvert the institution of marriage. To include a ban on homosexual/gay/lesbian marriages. This should include what has been commonly called, “civil unions”. If a homosexual wants an immoral relationship with another homosexual, fine, get it on. Just keep the door shut. If two homosexuals want to share in common aspects of life such as, retirement benefits, personal healthcare insurance, living wills or whatever, let them get a lawyer and draw up a personal contract. Otherwise, society isn’t obligated to accpet any form of marriage beyond that of one man and one woman.
>>>Though, while I’ll sure take a Constitutional Amendment, to clarify for all these idjuts, none is really needed.<<<
For someone who harps incessantly about the actions of the Supreme Court in Massachusetts, you seem mighty confident of this. Frankly, I’m surprised to see you on this side of the fence.