[aristeides]

The point of a constitutional amendment would be that it would be a rebuke instructing the Supreme Court to interpret Lawrence narrowly. We know from Limon that the Supreme Court presently has no such intention. We know from the size of the majorities that passed the Defense of Marriage Act that gay marriage is one issue on which a constitutional amendment would have a reasonable chance of passing.

So it's not just about gay marriage. (Gay marriage isn't even an issue that I feel particularly strongly about. But I do feel strongly about the Supreme Court instructing states to treat homosexual child molesters leniently.)

[solomangrundy]

I have read the SCOTUS ruling in its entirety and I cannot find anything in there about treating homosexual child molesters leniently. Do you always exaggerate or fabricate your arguments?

Now, if you're referring to the Kansas ruling concerning the teenagers, are you suggesting that heterosexual child molesters be treated more lenient than homosexual ones? The Kansas ruling simply made the sentence EQUAL to that of a heterosexual convicted of the same crime. Surely, you're not advocating heterosexual child molestation be treated leniently?