An unusual Article V ping.
God Bless Roy Moore! He is by no means fighting this thing alone.
COS ping.
I used to push for this exact thing... then someone pointed out to me correctly that a state-initiated convention under Article V of the Constitution ... has no rules... which means that ANYTHING could be changed in our present constitution..
Do conservative REALLY want to role the dice on what might come out of a complete re-write of our current constitution?
There is no point in a constitutional amendment; the Supreme Court no longer cares about written law. On issues of political correctness, they rule based on their personal biases:
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled that Proposition 8 (California constitutional amendment banning gay “marriage”) was unconstitutional, violating both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution. On June 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the Proposition 8 supporters did not have standing for an appeal, and thus left Walker’s arbitrary decision standing.
And while I sure laud his efforts, no chance there are the votes for this.
“Marriage” has always been between man and woman. What homosexuals want is to change the meaning of the word. They then claim that, under this modified meaning, they are being excluded.
If the meaning of words must be changed it is proof of a lie.
Must the Constitution be amended to prevent changing the meaning of words? Why stop at “marriage”, why not include other words? If the meaning of words can be altered then there are no limits, lies become truth and truth becomes a lie.
I agree with him.
"....Before I get to the point of how gay rights have been promoted at the expense of human rights and how the promotion of gay rights inevitably leads to the decline of freedom, it is important to note that homosexuals around the world already have equal rights which are clearly enshrined in the United Nations declaration of human rights. With regards to marriage, one of the principle complaints of the gays rights movement, is that gays are denied the right to marriage. This simply isn't true. The reality is that a homosexual man or woman for that matter, has every right to get married if they choose to do so. Just not to someone of the same sex. There is nothing discriminatory here, a homosexual has no more rights and no less rights than a heterosexual with regards to marriage. By the same token, sibling marriage or getting married to one of your parents is prohibited. Does a father and daughter who love each other have a right to get married?....
continued...
The problem isn’t the Constitution. It’s activist judges who find things in it that aren’t there. Fix that problem, and you don’t need an amendment about fag marriage.
Very brave of Roy Moore, but it has little chance. The bar is just too high at the state’s convention unless we get some real hardliners in there.
But let this be a reminder to everyone. The state legislatures are very important battles to fight.
I think same-sex marriage has progressed too far to reliably forbid it via convention. I don’t think that would prevent lots of other things from being passed.
BTTT!
For my governor to be able to read Roy Moore’s letter, unfortunately he’d have to write it in crayon.
Good move!
WOMAN’S LIB AND ISLAM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0cS4p9cFlo&feature=c4-overview&list=UUFDlhK80EdO28R-iGTXiGaw
Back when Bush backed the Defense of Marriage Act I thought that was the time to go for a constitutional amendment. It was dereliction of duty of the part of President Bush to not take that path. He merely set us up for Obama to ignore DOMA and instead push homosexuality everywhere after the Supreme Court smacked it down. This is what happens when the GOP is not sufficiently aggressive in defending what needs to be defended — in this case, marraige as an institution between one man and one woman.
The time has passed for that.
Even if an amendment had passed in the 90s, it would be easily repealed now.