"That's why the marriage amendment will be so helpful as it will define marriage correctly. Pity that we need to do this against the perverted homosexual agenda, but we will do whatever we can to stop them."
I oppose the Marriage Ammendment for this reason:
It isn't necessary. There's nothing wrong with marriage or it's definition. The problem is a rogue Judiciary, who thinks that they are empowered to rewrite the Constitution AND the dictionary.
The secondary problem is a complicit Legislative branch which has abdicated their responsibility to impeach judges who violate their oath of office, failing to "honor and uphold" the Constitution.
If we go for the Marriage Ammendment trap, we're admitting (again) that the Constitution, as written, is meaningless. We're accepting that judges have it in their power to act like autocrats, and we're accepting that it is our only option to deal with these things on a case by case basis.
What good is an Ammendment to a meaningless Constitution?
It's actually much easier to impeach a federal judge than it is to Ammend the Constitution. Impeachment requires a simple majority of the House and 2/3 of the Senate. Ammendments require 2/3 of heach house, plus 3/4 of the legislatures in all 50 States. Make that both legislatures in bicameral States.
