[Polycarp]

This is gravely serious, folks.

[toothless]

the sky is falling!
the sky is falling!
the sky is falling!

[demkicker]

I agree that this is serious and think all sane people better make their voices heard NOW. Folks, do not wait until the left gets their shrill supporters of gay marriage whipped into a vitriolic freenzy. Pretend you are the leader of a PAC, get off your butts and find your voices now! We need to flood our representatives with a show of force. Call, write and fax your opposition to gay marriage unless you want to see it made legal.

[MalcolmS]

I'm confused.

On the one hand, the right to privacy does not appear in the Constitution, as stated in the article.

On the other hand, is it a natural right, not assigned to the Federal government, and therefore devolving to "the state or the people?"

[savedbygrace]

If the Supreme Court finds the amendment unconstitutional -- which, thanks to Lawrence, they now claim the right to do -- then we're sunk.

This is the part I don't get. If an amendment to the Constitution is passed by one of the two Constitutionally sanctioned methods, then it is a part of the Constitution. Therefore, it cannot be unConstitutional.

[AnalogReigns]

While I follow his argument--and basically agree with it--this one statement tells me he has no grasp on constitutional law:

"If the Supreme Court finds the amendment unconstitutional -- which, thanks to Lawrence, they now claim the right to do -- then we're sunk."

Ammendments obviously becominging a part of the Constitution cannot by definition be "unconstitutional," no matter what the Supremes think. This is Jr. High school civics knowlege....however perhaps he means if the Supremes don't approve of the ammendment PROCESS...so I'll give Mr. Hudson the benefit of a doubt.

The idea that this could be worse than Roe v. Wade though is by implication of it being a much wider decision--of course there's no comparison of perverted sex, vs. murder of babeis...however Roe was narrow in scope, only covering abortion, where as this decision, appears wide enough to drive a truck through it.

I predict though, if the truck tries to speed through (ie. legalizing gay marriage in all states, adult incest, polygammy, or etc.) there will be a serious outcry and rebellion like modern liberals have never seen. I think a great majority of Americans just will not stand for this liberal elite nonsense any longer, especially when it hits home. To already have government organizations (including the California courts and now the United Way) persecuting the Boy Scouts, of all organizations---to force them to have perverts as scoutmasters--- is just the tip of the iceburg of the radical agenda--and there will come a time, soon, when good, normal, intelligent people (not too polluted by the elites) will just not comply.

Will it end up in literal war? Since I don't see great regional/geographic lines--still, somehow, I wouldn't be surprised to see such in my lifetime.

An America that "blesses" homosexual behavior, incest, polygammy, pedophilia, prostitution and all manner of perversions, and of course abortion, is not my kind of country. If it ever becomes that way, well, I for one won't take it lying down.

[shred]

This was a very sensible, conservative, anti- big government decision.

Now the government cannot, for all of time, ever come into anyone's bedroom and arrest them for consensual private sexual activity.

If you big government loving theocratic crusaders are this upset about it, it means it probably was a truly *great* decision.

shred