Matt,

Fair enough. But does that mean we can use the fact that nearly every state in the nation has some sort of gun restriction on the books to mean that a majority of America feels that guns are a huge problem?

Protecting marriage is about the least divisive issue out there. When even the far left kookdum that's known as Oregon passes the ammendment with an astonishing 57% you know it's pretty safe to say it's not at all divisive.

Matt,
Portecting marrage from what? What's there to protect?

btw: EVEN right-wingers say that this gay marrage ban is just a last ditch effort for the Chimp to rally his base. Nice try.

It may be time to give up on the probability of the US Senate passing the amendment by a two-thirds majority. The alternative is to have two-thirds of the state legislatures call for a constitional convention, at which the constitution may be amended.

Third Eye Blind,
What state has a constitutional amendment banning gun ownership? Do you really find a law requiring a trigger lock on a gun and a state constitutional amendment banning 2 fags from getting married as equal in representing the public's will? Hate to burst your bubble but, Nebraska just passed a concealed carry law.

You lib's run on the anti-gun/pro-homo platform and conservative's will run on the pro-gun/pro-marriage platform and let's see who gets the most votes...wait a minute!...we did that and 04' and President Bush got more votes than any President in the history of US elections.

"Portecting marrage from what?"

From unelected judges redifining the meaning.

It may be time to give up on the probability of the US Senate passing the amendment by a two-thirds majority. The alternative is to have two-thirds of the state legislatures call for a constitional convention, at which the constitution may be amended.

-- This option has never once been successful since the republic was founded, so good luck

What I have yet seen addressed (maybe it has, I really don't know for certain) is what will happen if a gay couple married in a state that allows gay marriage moves to a state that does not legal recognize it. Let's say one of them gets a job with state or local government but is denied insurance for their partner due to that state not recognizing gay marriages. It seems to me this will become a constitutional issue before the Supreme Court at some point which will create a public outcry. And depending upon who controls the Senate and House, it might actually get pushed to possibly be an amendment issue.

POLL: Only 3 Percent Say Homosexuality is America’s ‘Most Serious Moral Crisis’ »

President Bush and congressional conservatives “are aiming the political spotlight this week on efforts to ban gay marriage,” a move that’s sure to renew debate over so-called “values voters.” But as a poll released today by the Center for American Progress shows, the moral concerns of the American people are nothing like what the right wing claims.

Below, some highlights:

– Asked to name the most serious moral crisis in America today, 28% of Americans cite “kids not raised with the right values”; followed by 22% saying “corruption in government/business”; 17% saying “greed and materialism” or “people too focused on themselves”; and only 3% citing “abortion and homosexuality.”

– On addressing poverty: 68% of voters strongly agree that “government should uphold the basic decency and dignity of all and take greater steps to help the poor and disadvantaged in America” (89% total agree).

– On religious freedom: 67% of voters believe that religious freedom is a “critical” part of their image of America compared to less than three in 10 who believe Judeo-Christian faith specifically is critical to this image.

(Click HERE for more details on the poll, and HERE for a slideshow presentation on the findings. For what it’s worth, among voters who participated in the survey, 46% voted in 2004 for President Bush, while 36% voted for John Kerry.)

As Ron Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times wrote this weekend, “the survey demonstrated again that the moral issues people worried about most in their daily lives were very different from the ones dominating political debate.”

Nebraska,

Take a look at what matt said, he not only quoted that states have put it in their constitution, but also have made laws regarding it. I was just reminding ya'll that to pass a law isn't all that hard to do, infact people pass laws all the time restricting who and how and why a gun can be owned and purchased.

Secondly, I live in Florida, and its pretty darn easy to get just about anything in the constitution here, for instance class size, there is a perfect example of stupid things that can be put into our constitution, i would bet nebrask has some pretty stupid stuff thats managed to invade your constitution, it doesnt mean a majority of peopple really agree, just that a majority of the poulation is apathetic, and doesn't vote at all, so the energized bases and advocates are pushing most policy, in most states, capiche?

Infact, here is a nice little one you guys have got on the ballot for this year, enjoy:

"A constitutional amendment to state that the language in the Constitution shall be construed to be gender neutral and to direct the Secretary of State to revise and reprint the Constitution to implement such construction."

this is NOT a federal issue.

what has happened to the party of Reagan?

Pro-marriage is a good idea considering our soaring divorce rate but why is the proposed amendment so narrow? The bible, in addition to the man shall not lye with man rule also defines a divorced woman who remarries as an adulterer, masturbation as sin, etc....Is this amendment the first step in the total regulation of the concept of marriage or merely a single rule aimed at a single group of people?

Ha! I'll bet you're as stupid as us! Good one TEO.

It's really sad that the GOP is using their position of power to restrict peoples' freedoms rather than safeguard it and protect it.

Marriage needs protection from the 50% of heterosexuals couples that end their marriage in divorce. They have redefined "marriage" as just a mere convenience, not a lifetime commitment.

Disallowing gays the financial benefits of marriage or civil unions is against the personal freedoms upon which this nation was founded.

It's a sad, sad day when this kind of bigotted behavior consumes the congress.

Wade

Kahn,

The class-size amendment was the biggest waste of time EVER!

We have some iron-clad requirement for classes, that leaves some schools with 10 kids in a class, and others forced to invest 3/4 their budget on portables, instead of allowing for averaging of counties or geographic groupings of counties.

Not only can the people of this state not count properly, but they vote for the dumbest things.

The point is still valid, it was a bunch of do-gooders from NY and NJ who moved down to south florida who pushed this things, they did'nt care it was going to bankrupt schools, they just want to make sure they can re-make south flroida into little-NYC. Bu I would argue that most people don't pay attention to anything but presedential elections, so the only people who are fighting are the polar opposite 5% of the political spectrum who follow this stuff, this is why America is going to the dogs, we are more concerned with voting for an American Idol, than taking part in boring old civic duty.

adriandrews,

ABSOLUTELY. I've tried to get people to acknowledge that for months, but no one even knows it's there and the liberal media sure doesn't want the American people to know it!

Forget about Congress trying to pass a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage. The Senate Democrats and even a few RINO Republicans like Senator Specter will continue to stall, block, and filibuster the efforts of the majority to get an Amendment to the people for a vote.

The Constitution provides another way to propose Constitutional Amendments. The states can bypass Congress and convene a Constitutional Convention to propose Amendments to the Constitution. A Constitutional Convention can be convened by a vote of only 34 States, and the Convention could propose multiple amendments while in session! It only takes 38 to ratify it after approved. Forty-five states have already expressed their opposition to gay marriage -- 45 -- that's 7 more than we need!

Contact your state legislators and ask them to work to convene the Constitutional Convention. It has never been used to amend the Constitution -- the news only reports on the Congressional method -- but if nothing else, we need to get the procedures in place for when the liberal activist "law giver" judges do something to REALLY make Americans angry. That time will come, and we must be ready to act. We have already missed opportunity after opportunity -- but others will come.

The whole purpose of liberal Congressional Democratic efforts are to stall and block in hopes that the media and the liberals can have enough time to desensitize the issue so more people finally give up fighting for their own beliefs and it becomes impossible to get the 2/3 and 3/4 we need to stop them! Liberals and Democrats want to give people a false sense of hope that their state laws or a federal law will protect marriage from the liberal activist courts. It won't! Look at Nebraska, Oklahoma, and others. There is still that bridge for sale in Brooklyn for anyone who believe that story!

Wake up! The liberals continue their destruction of the Constitutional process through the activist judges. They can be stopped and the Constitutional process repaired, but only if Americans learn what is really happening and who is really making the laws that continue to tear America apart.

Again... Contact your state legislators and ask them to start work on a Constitutional Convention!

Talk to the groups who oppose gay marriage. Ask them to help.

E-mail your friends, relatives, and contacts. Ask they to do the same.

Write letters to the editor of your paper.

Ask other blogs to help.

Contact your U.S. Senators and Representatives too.

Ask them to vote for the Amendment, but ask too that they do what they can to work with their State Legislators to convene the Constitutional Convention!

AAR

I'm a Catholic. Today Pope Benedict released a 57 page document on the church's stance against gay marriage, abortion, etc.

Good for Pope Benedict!!

Nineteen states have constitutional amendments: Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas and Utah. (emphasis - mine)

Here is why we need a Federal Constitutional Amendment:

Nebraska federal district court judge Joseph Battaillon on May 12 struck down the Nebraska marriage amendment, also called Section 29, which was passed by 70 percent of Nebraska voters (emphasis - mine)

The case was back in front of the court early this year. An interesting side note from this article:

Bydalek, meanwhile, said the case has had an unexpected silver lining - Bataillon's ruling last year led U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., to change his stance on the need for a federal marriage-protection amendment.

We absolutely need this marriage amendment! Most of us don't care what goes on behind another couple's closed doors, but the value in fighting for this particular amendment is that it will energize all the, shall we say, "less questioning, but more patriotic" citizenry who may then ignore the fact that their gas prices are going through the roof for the benefit of our leader's real constituency. And they may ignore the fact that the tax breaks are going only to the rich. And by ignoring all of that, they'll continue to vote for anyone and everyone who (a) praises Jesus as the official spiritual leader of the country and Bush as his second-in-command, and (b) promises to fight for our so-called mainstream values, like man-woman being the official union and man-on-top being the official sexual position, and English being the official language (with a limited carve-out for towns with Spanish-sounding names, like Boca Raton, where a lot of Republicans live). By taking the minds of the citizenry off the real issues, and instead having them focus on these social issues, the rich will get richer and the poor will stay poor. And if the social issues don't sufficiently energize the people, we can always start another war, assuming we have another 3000 or so not-particularly-important-minorities to sacrifice. It's all for a good cause - lower taxes and more profits for the oil companies!!

Nineteen states have constitutional amendments: Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas and Utah. (emphasis - mine)

Here is why we need a Federal Constitutional Amendment:

Nebraska federal district court judge Joseph Battaillon on May 12 struck down the Nebraska marriage amendment, also called Section 29, which was passed by 70 percent of Nebraska voters (emphasis - mine)

The case was back in front of the court early this year. An interesting side note from this article:

Bydalek, meanwhile, said the case has had an unexpected silver lining - Bataillon's ruling last year led U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., to change his stance on the need for a federal marriage-protection amendment.

You boys sure do spend a lot of time thinking about homosexuality.....

Retired Spook,

You guys can rail all you want about judicial activism, but its simple reading of the constitution.

The Equal protection clause of the 14th amendment guarantees that if you let straight people marry, then you have to let gays marry, unless the state has a "compelling" reason to do so and can pass strict scrutiny. Now last I checked fear of gay people, or the watering down of the holiness, or whatever other bogus charge you folks can come up with, doesn't constitute a compelling reason for the courts to deny an entire group the afforded protection of everyone else.

So in conclusion, this isn't a matter of judges overruling the will of the people. Since the will of the people was unconstitutional it was illegal for them to abridge the rights of gay people. If you don't like the constitution, then go ahead and change it, but you and I both know your ability to garner 67 votes is not going to happen.

lets see.. what might "threaten" my hetrosexual marriage... two guys a few houses away living together or the 55 year old man (about my age) who divorces his long-time wife and remarries a young trophy wife..... HUMMMMM damn she looks good and my mind is wondering

One thing I never understood in this debate over gay marriage: how is your marriage threatened if gay people can get married?

Face it. What's really the driving force behind this whole charade of "protecting marriage" is the irrational fear that "gayness" will somehow spread like wildfire through our culture if equal rights are extended to gays. The hidden fear is that if gays are allowed to get married, then the next thing you know it, they're going to be out fornicating on your front lawn.

But fear not, my fellow heteros - if you're gay, you're gay, and if you're not, you're not. The number of gay people does not increase in proportion to the level of society's tolerance towards gays. In strict Islamic nations that harshly treat homosexuals as criminals, you can bet that there are just as many gay people in the population. And extending equal treatment towards gays puts you or your family in no more danger of becoming gay than the civil rights movement put you in danger of becoming black (assuming you're not black or gay already!). Similarly, your marriage is not cheapened by gays being able to get married any more than your vote is less meaningful just because blacks or women can also vote.

This proposed amendment is not about "protecting marriage". It's not even that much about pandering to Bush's Christian Fundamentalist base, as some have charged. What it's really about is tapping into widespread hidden fears about "gayness" for political gain.

Nobody is more adept at exploiting irrational fears more than the Bushian righties. Matt is right about one thing - these fears towards gays are harbored by a majority of the public, whether they be democrat or republican or Bushian cultist. Karl Rove understands this well. The whole thing is disguised as protecting marriage, but it's really about stoking fears of rampaging gayness.

The survival of your marriage depends on love, understanding, perseverance, and fundamental compatibility - NOT whether the gay couple down the street are or are not able to get married.

The party of Reagan has been replaced by the folks who want the voters to believe that "protection of marriage" is more important to most of us than soaring gas costs, an unnecessary Bush-led quagmire in Iraq, a soaring deficit, and a Congress and President that less than a third of us believe are leading the country in the right direction. Just once I'd like to see my Republican party start focusing on uniting the country with leadership and pragmatism, and stop pandering to the religious extremists who have disproportionate influence on the party's priorities.

Retired Spook,

Absolutely 100% CORRECT! The liberal left just wants to stall until we have a majority, but not the super majority we need. It's time we stop talking to the left -- with would imply a two way conversation -- and get on with our business... the business of RESTORING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION and STOP ACTIVIST JUDGES from making our laws in VIOLATION of the Constitution!

No clue (eyes shut),

That's what happens when people like you, axis, and the liberal judges choose to interpret the Constitution out of the context of history. Check back on the laws in effect when the Constitution and the 14th Amendment were written and ratified.

Check the laws on sodomy. You do know what sodomy is, right? You do know that without sodomy, there is no gay marriage, right?

Well, do you know that sodomy was illegal then -- against the law!? Do you know that a person found guilty of sodomy could get many years in prison? Do you know that a person convicted of sodomy could be hanged or whatever form of execution was deemed appropriate?

And now you are going to argue that something that was clearly illegal -- for which a person could be imprisoned or hanged -- is now "protected" by the Constitution? I don't think so!

No one would have ever imagined at the time the Constitution and the 14th Amendment was ratified that anyone -- in their wildest dreams -- would EVER have considered a homosexual or lesbian "relationship" a marriage! Had that anyone even thought that could have been a remote possibility it would have been addressed and stopped -- after the trial!

Now you are going to argue that the Constitution and the 14th Amendment protect "gay marriage"? I don't think so! That's exactly the logic that liberal use. That's exactly the logic activist judges use. And that's exactly what is Unconstitutional!

Teen asks why is this nation being torn apart. That's a prime example!

Until the Supreme Court struck down the Texas anti-sodomy laws, and thereby the remaining state laws against sodomy, it was basically a states rights issue, but that made it a Constitutional issue. The activist judges are the ones who took it out of the hands of the states and made it a national issue.

And now you expect Americans to sit by and wait for the activist left, homosexuals, and lesbians to use The Full Faith And Credit Clause, Article IV, to force the laws of one state -- e.g., Massachusetts -- on the rest of us. That's exactly what's happening in Nebraska and Oklahoma.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause -- Article IV, of the U.S. Constitution -- provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the United States.

That IS EXACTLY where they are HEADED, that IS EXACTLY their PLANS.

Today Massachusetts... Tomorrow ALL OF AMERICA! It doesn't matter what YOU want. It's what THEY want!

Wake up America before you get another liberal "value" you don't want.

Refer back to my previous post, and contact your state legislators.

Add to that list too, contact Senator Frist and ask him to help coordinate efforts with the states to convene a Constitutional Convention -- before it is too late to do anything about it!

What we are missing are leaders who will ignite the people and tell them what to do next!

STOP listening to the left! START taking action!

AAR

repubs tend to espouse "states rights." . . . unless its against their politcal interest.

repubs have beaten liberal up with the "big gov't big spenders" for years . . . now we have the most obscene govt spending in history in your repub controlled govt.

repubs claimed for years to want to keep gov't and regulations out of our lives only to try to get into our bedrooms and sexlives and end of life decisions.

libs and lefties have their fare share of hypocrisy . . . but your christo-facists right-wing theocrats are the most dangerous.

In all that hysterical screeching, you still haven't explained how preventing gays from getting married "protects marriage". What are you threatened by?

Face it - the Bushian right preys upon your fear and ignorance.

Fear and Ignorance - the twin pillars or Bushian political power.

TEO,

I've read the 14th Amendment numerous times, but I read it again, just to make sure I hadn't missed something (a penumbra or some such nitwittery). Sure enough, nothing in there about homosexuals or marriage. Since Amendment XIV, Sections 2, 3, 4 & 5 have no relevance whatsoever to personal rights, I assume you're talking about Section 1, which reads:

(Citizenship Rights Not to Be abridged by States)

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Could you please point out to me the part that says it's OK for the government to change an historic definition of anything (marriage, theft, citizenship, you name it) to grant, to a particular group, rights that heretofor have not existed?

I'm not so concerned about the effects of homosexual marriage on staight marriage as I am the can of worms it would open. Once you change an historic definition to benefit one group, you open the door to all kinds of other groups. What about a man and two women? Two men and 3 women? A man and his dog? The possibilities are endless.
Just be careful what you wish for.

AND what you are really saying Third Eye Open and Liberals, is that if you let Gays marry then you have to allow people marry 20 wives at once or you have to let a 7 year old girl marry a 50 year old man, or a liberal can marry his donkey.

Because once the flood gates are open, they are OPEN.

That's the bigger issue. If you have an amendment, the Supreme Court cannot strike it down, it becomes PART OF THE CONSTITUTION.

That, is the entire POINT!

We are protecting marriage from becoming something it isn't supposed to become.

Animals marrying people
50 year olds marrying 12 year olds
People marrying 30 people at once
Etc, etc.

And before you say that would never happen, go back about 20 years when people said gay marriage would never happen.

All it takes is some idiot liberals to think any stupid idea is a good one and they will work their life away trying to make it happen.

ENOUGH!

Guys,

Polygomy is illegal from a statute point of view. They aren't being told they can't marry, just that you can only have one marriage at a time.

you can't marry a goat because marriage requires consent, you can't garner consent from an animal, this is why having sex with animals and children is illegal.

the point that I mention the 14th spook, I thought was pretty obvious, but ill explain it again. You can't enact a law that denies the rights some people hold from other people without proving that there is an imperative for the state to do so. Now what "compelling" reason do you have to tell Dan and Dave they can't get married, we have already seen your stupid excuse about guys marrying 20 women or a goat are obviously non-starters.

one of your guys mentioned sodomy being illegal at the time of the writing of the constitution, well who exactly is checking that these guys are sodomozing eachother ... was oral sex illegal too? can you prove they EVER have sex? what if they just like to cuddle a whole lot?

Third Eye....and 20 years ago everyone laughed that gays would be allowed to marry. In 20 years, there will be a clown out there that will train his goat to scratch his paw on the ground 3 times to signal "intent".

And some liberal hack judge will buy it. Take it to the bank.

Warriornation,

Dude I apprecaite your concern for slippery slopes, but man, you can't apply the rights of citizenship to an animal. You still have to prove there is compelling reasons why the state has to deny two guys marriage.

personally I don't like this issue at all, I think the government should get out of the business of deciding about marriage outside of the full faith clause. Just make everything a civil union, I mean whats in a name?

Spook,

I totally forgot to talk about your point regarding the changing of the intent behind such things as (theft, murder, citizenship etc.); that assumption is blatantly false because we reclassify things all the time: did they have 3rd degree murder in colonial times? Pot was legal and seen as medicine and used for recreational purposes, yet we reclassified it and stripped its medicinal qualities from that classification, we do things like that all the time.

If you wanna rail about "intent" you're digging yourself a hole, we have seen how grey an area it is when trying to read into the intent of dead people. I would argue that the founding fathers knew that times would change, and wanted our document to be as flexible as it could be to allow for modern problems and advances, this is why they didn't codefy things they didn't have to.

3rd eye...we are giving rights to non-citzens now...so why again would I think that giving other non-citizens rights (animals) is out of the question for you goofballs?

Warriornation,

LOL!! fair enough man, I applaud your tenacity.

When someone can get a judge in S.F. to uphold the right for his dog to purchase and own a gun, and then begin paying taxes, ill conceed the point.

“wanted our document to be as flexible as it could be to allow for modern problems and advances, this is why they didn't codefy (sic) things they didn't have to.”
Shows you are as ignorant of the Law as you are on every other subject. The Constitution is a legal document, specifically outlining what is acceptable and what is not. All laws written must first not be at odds with the Constitution; (see: [Marbury v. Madison]). The framers never intended, nor did they codify a document that left doubt as to its intent. (To “codify” is to put into codes, we no longer follow English common Law as we have codified the applicable parts.)
And speaking of English common law, JPL can better comment on this; but yes, intent was part of the original laws passed within the colonies, and “codified” into the States laws (3rd degree).

Warriornation -

"We are protecting marriage from becoming something it isn't supposed to become.

Animals marrying people
50 year olds marrying 12 year olds
People marrying 30 people at once
Etc, etc."

Oh Lordy - eyes rolling. Thanks for proving my point this whole thing is about preying upon your irrational fears than about "protecting marriage".

Yes, freedom and equality do progress over time as society becomes more enlightened. For example, around the turn of the century, in many areas of the US it was illegal for protestants and Catholics to marry. As recently as the 1960's, in many areas of the south it was illegal for blacks and whites to even be dating!

So yes, society progresses. But for crying out loud, Warrior, when women got the right to vote in the 1920's, that did not lead to pigs voting! When Jim Crow laws were abolished by the Civil Rights Act, that did not lead to earth worms getting to sit in the front of the bus, or nudists getting to sit at the lunch counter!

Is congering fearful visions of the absurd your only defense?

Warriornation -

"We are protecting marriage from becoming something it isn't supposed to become.

Animals marrying people
50 year olds marrying 12 year olds
People marrying 30 people at once
Etc, etc."

Oh Lordy - eyes rolling. Thanks for proving my point that this whole thing is about preying upon your irrational fears than about "protecting marriage".

Yes, freedom and equality do progress over time as society becomes more enlightened. For example, around the turn of the century, in many areas of the US it was illegal for protestants and Catholics to marry. As recently as the 1960's, in many areas of the south it was illegal for blacks and whites to even be dating!

So yes, society progresses. But for crying out loud, Warrior, when women got the right to vote in the 1920's, that did not lead to pigs voting! When Jim Crow laws were abolished by the Civil Rights Act, that did not lead to earth worms getting to sit in the front of the bus, or nudists getting to sit at the lunch counter!

Is congering fearful visions of the absurd your only defense?

"christo-facists right-wing theocrats"

And just are those people that the left want you to believe are so very dangerous to America? Guess?

It is anyone who is opposed to their anti-morality, anti-values agenda. It is someone who is opposed to gay marriage! It is someone who wants "under God" left where it is! It is someone who doesn't object to leaving a monument of the Ten Commandments in a park where it has stood for a half century or longer! It is someone who believes in public support and funding for the Boy Scouts!

It is YOU... unless you happen to be a left wing liberal, a left wing activist or an atheist!

Learn their language. Learn to know when it is YOU they are really talking about.

Don't be fooled into opposing or voting against your own values, beliefs, and self!

That's called suicide!

Now, call your state legislators and Senator Frist and ask them to get that Constitutional Convention moving. Stop the stalling, blocking, filibustering, and delaying by liberals in Congress!

AAR

Sorry Aaron, it's actually about protecting what every society and every country in this world have come to the same conclusion on. Marriage is between a man and a woman. It is a fundamental aspect of society and prolongs the species.

It is also fundamentally right. Yes, some governments have changed their laws but society is still society.

I have no problem with civil unions for gay people God Bless them. Don't redefine marriage.

AAR-
So we should disregard the 14th Amendment? All for state's rights huh?
These arguements are the same ones that kept slavery and segregation alive for so long.
Do you know that it was people just like you who only 50 years ago said that a black marrying a white " Was a treat to marriage and the well being of our society" ? Sound familiar? And they wrote and cited state laws banning such a practice as justification.
Now that your forfathers lost that battle their grandchildren have moved on to the gays.
I only gain hope in the knowledge that you'll follow in the family tradition and lose on this one as well.

Oh and that whole sodomy tangent you went on...while revealing .....just seemed kinda wacky. Note, sodomy according to the law, is classified as oral or anal pentration so Republicans remember, the next time your wife or sweetheart gives you a hummer, make sure you're in the right state, you just could be breaking the law. ...just lookin out for ya there. Carrry on.

Leftorium

A black marrying a white is still a man marrying a woman. That is at the core issue here. What is the DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE?

Is it man and woman? Is it just two people that love each other?

Most of the world and the world's religions believe it is MAN + WOMAN.

Not sure why you think this is a bad thing or such a problem that it needs to be changed.

Give Gay couples the same rights as married ones, but do not redefine marriage for something it is not.

It's not about changing the definition of marriage it's about inclusion. You see it as a redefinition, I do not.
Your stance is bad in that it creates and endorses and underclass for a certain segment of the population. It's government endorsement of discrimination. And government the last time i checked had no business in the church. Have you heard something In that regard that i havent?
It's called seperation of church and state.
Holliness is not the business of government.

RE: "...that did not lead to pigs voting! ... that did not lead to earth worms getting to sit in the front of the bus..."

And we want to MAKE SURE IT STAYS THAT WAY!

Fool me once -- shame on you. Fool me twice -- shame on me.

You must really think that anyone who doesn't agree with your left wing agenda is ignorant of what is happening around them. The news tell all. Day after day we see liberal left wing activist judges redefining, re-interpreting, modifying, and changing the Constitution and our laws.

Some of us have had ENOUGH OF IT! We do not want judges amending the Constitution by a one or two vote majority that forces the rest of America to come up with a 2/3 and 3/4 super majority to over turn.

Judges are doing with the stroke of their pens what was intended to be almost impossible to do the correct and Constitutional way. Instead of interpreting and defending the Constitution to mean what our founders and lawmakers intended, activist judges have in fact turned it against America. They make the laws and force the majority to try and work up enough votes to defeat them... to overturn their decisions which they made based on their own personal beliefs using the concept of a "living Constitution"!    A B S U R D ! ! !  ...It is more like a dead, judge controlled Constitution that we have now!

RE: "Is congering (conjuring) fearful visions of the absurd your only defense?"

No. That is your defense -- the liberal defense to everything!

AAR

It's not about changing the definition of marriage it's about inclusion. You see it as a redefinition, I do not.
Your stance is bad in that it creates and endorses and underclass for a certain segment of the population. It's government endorsement of discrimination. And government the last time i checked had no business in the church. Have you heard something In that regard that i havent?
It's called seperation of church and state.
Holliness is not the business of government.

I totally forgot to talk about your point regarding the changing of the intent behind such things as (theft, murder, citizenship etc.); that assumption is blatantly false because we reclassify things all the time: did they have 3rd degree murder in colonial times? Pot was legal and seen as medicine and used for recreational purposes, yet we reclassified it and stripped its medicinal qualities from that classification, we do things like that all the time.

TEO, comparing adding a degree of murder and legalizing (or decriminalizing) pot to changing the definition of marriage is apples and oranges. A better comparison would be to change the definition of theft to exclude someone who steals because their family is hungry, (to benefit a certain group), something I doubt you would support.

For the sake of argument, let's exclude people marrying animals, although, like Warriornation, nothing would surprise me. (I's sure any number of animals could be trained to signal intent.) That still leaves a lot of potential groups who would/could seek to be included in an expanded definition of marriage -- brothers marrying sisters, grandfathers marrying granddaughters, etc. Just not a road I think we as a society want to go down. It has the potential to be the slipperest of slippery slopes.

The gay marriage amendment isn't about marriage.
It's about gay.

Warrior-

Gay couples do not have the same rights as straight couples do and the government isnt in a hurry to give them either.
They can not pass on property, can not receive death beneits, thay have no say as to the medical care for their spouse. No rights at all actually.
The government is creating a subclass of citizens and its time it stops.
And the last time i checked we have something called the separtation of church and state. Government should just be in the business of issueing a standard marriage license. Thats all. Instead these guys want the government telling the church what to do. Is that fine with you?

Warriornation ("tennnnnhutttt!"):

I'm with you. Keep marriage between a man and a woman, and keep the man on top. Jesus wouldn't want it any other way, except if Mary Magdalene was half the woman I've heard she was, she probably spent a considerable amount of time on top, sideways, you name it...

Why don't you reactionary yahoos wake up? Bush gets you all whipped up into a frenzy over dumb issues like gay marriage, while his only goal is to get you out to the polls so you vote for people who aren't going to give a damn about your middle class interests, but who may service your hysteria by telling you that they'll fight for laws ensuring that kids say the pledge of allegiance, gays don't wear wedding rings, and people sing God Bless America in english. And you'll swallow it, hook line and sinker, while the oil execs charge you three bucks a gallon and reap in huge profits. Your kids will go off to needless wars, while mine won't ever have to, because they're two cute-as-button upper class white girls like Jenna and Barbara who don't need to join the military in order to buy themselves an education or make an income.
You're all such suckers, it's unbelievable. I have a delicious picture of Rove and Cheney reading your rants, and laughing at you.
By the way, what's the purpose behind your spending all your time on this stuff, anyway? It's like some kind of masturbatory fantasy you all share, lapping up and defending anything Bush does, whether it's cutting taxes for rich people in ways that don't benefit you, or allowing gas prices to rise to unprecedented levels. It's all very strange.

I tend to agree with Warriornation on his point about civil unions.
Civil unions are between 2 consenting adults in the eyes of the government.
Leave marriages to the churches and other groups.

Example: my parents (a man and woman are married in the eyes of their church, but not in the eyes of the state (government) where they should be considered a civil union.

Seems fair enough.
No separate, but equal there.

NOTE: I keep getting the B4B dark blue server error message, so this may result in a double post. I can't tell from this end yet.

Leftorium,

YOU PROVE THE CASE! It is exactly because of thinking like yours that we MUST Amend the Constitution NOW!

There is no way, except in the mind of a liberal or activist judge to justify gay marriage by the 14th Amendment -- unless it is taken out of the context of history -- but that is EXACTLY what you, liberals, and activist judges expect and plan to do. That is EXACTLY what Americans must understand!

You missed the whole point about my comment on sodomy.

Just how do you think that homosexuals and lesbians engage in sex. And just how do you think a "gay couple" will engage in sex -- assuming they engage in sex -- which we all know they will! Their acts are defined as sodomy... by your own words: "Note, sodomy according to the law, is classified as oral or anal penetration..."

And if sodomy was illegal -- punishable by prison or even death -- at the time the Constitution and the 14th Amendment was ratified, what does that tell you?

Well, let's see if I can walk you through that...

Sodomy was illegal punishable by prison or the death penalty.

Gay sex is sodomy.

Gay marriage includes gay sex which is sodomy.

Therefore: Gay marriage would have been punishable by prison or the death penalty.

Had those who wrote and ratified the Constitution and the 14th Amendment intended for it to make legal something that was universally illegal to the extent that sodomy was -- and gay marriage would not have even been thought about or discussed, or considered -- it would have clearly been so stated. It wasn't!

And you are going to tell me that something that was illegal and punishable by prison or the death penalty at the time the Constitution and 14th Amendment were ratified is now protected by the same. NOT IN MY BOOK!

That is called interpreting the Constitution and its Amendments by activist liberal judges under their concept of a "living Constitution" -- which means, in effect -- NO CONSTITUTION!

That is EXACTLY THE PROBLEM WE HAVE TODAY!

If you want gay marriage, do it the right way. Amend the Constitution to make it legal.

AAR

Warrior -

"Aaron, it's actually about protecting what every society and every country in this world have come to the same conclusion on. Marriage is between a man and a woman. It is a fundamental aspect of society and prolongs the species."

Sheesh - that's got to be the ultimate "the sky is falling" rationale for prohibiting gays from being married: it will lead to declining birth rates.

Allowing gay people to marry in no way prevents, hampers, or abridges marriage between a man and a woman! So please... the "prolonging of the species" doesn't enter into the equation. Allowing or not allowing gays to be married has no affect on how many children are born.

In countries and states where gays can get married, we've seen no drop in the species ability to prolong itself, nor have we seen marriage between a man and a woman in any way threatened. On the contrary - in the places where gays are also allowed to marry, divorce rates between men and women are much lower than in those places in the US that are the most hot and bothered to pass a gay marriage ban.

Indeed, as conservative Andrew Sullivan has pointed out, the state with the lowest divorce rate in the US is Massachussetts, which allows gay s to get married. Here's the link to the whole article - but I'll reprint a few key excerpts:

"Ask yourself a simple question: which state has the highest divorce rate? Marriage was a key issue in the last election, with Massachusetts’ gay marriages becoming a symbol of alleged blue state decadence and moral decay. But in fact Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country at 2.4 divorces per 1,000 inhabitants. Texas, which until recently made private gay sex a crime, has a divorce rate of 4.1.

A fluke? Not at all. The states with the highest divorce rates are Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas. The states with the lowest divorce rates are: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont.

Every one of the high divorce rate states went for Bush. Every one of the low divorce rate states went for Kerry. The Bible Belt divorce rate is roughly 50% higher than the national average.

...Those parts of America that most fiercely uphold what they believe are traditional values are not those parts where traditional values are healthiest. Hypocrisy? Perhaps. A more insightful explanation is that socially troubled communities cling to absolutes in the abstract because they cannot live up to them in practice.

Doesn’t being born again help to bring down divorce rates? Jesus was clear about divorce, declaring it a sin unless adultery was involved. A recent study found no measurable difference in divorce rates between those who are “born again” and those who are not; 29% of Baptists have been divorced, compared with 21% of Catholics. Moreover, a staggering 23% of married born agains have been divorced twice or more.

Teenage births? Again, the contrast is striking. In a state such as Texas where the religious right is strong and the rhetoric against teenage sex is gale-force strong, teen births as a percentage of all births are 16.1%. In liberal, secular Massachusetts they are 7.4%, less than half.

Marriage itself is less popular in Texas than in Massachusetts. In Texas the proportion of people unmarried is 32.4%; in Massachusetts it is 26.8%. So even with a higher marriage rate, Massachusetts has a divorce rate almost half of its “conservative” rival.

Take abortion. America is one of the few western countries where the legality of abortion is still ferociously disputed. It is a country where the religious right is arguably the strongest single voting bloc and in which abortion is a constant feature of cultural politics.

Compare it with a country such as Holland, perhaps the epitome of social liberalism. Which country has the highest rate of abortion? It is not even close. America has a rate of 21 abortions per 1,000 women aged between 15 and 44. Holland has a rate of 6.8. Americans, in other words, have three times as many abortions as the Dutch. Remind me again: which country is the most socially conservative?

Even a cursory look at the leading members of the forces of social conservatism in America reveals the same pattern. Rush Limbaugh, the top conservative talk-radio host, has had three divorces and an addiction to painkillers. Bill O’Reilly, the most popular conservative television personality, just settled a sex harassment suit that indicated a highly active adulterous sex life. Bill Bennett, guru of the social right, was for many years a gambling addict. Bob Barr, the conservative Georgian congressman who wrote the Defense of Marriage Act, has had three wives. The states that register the highest ratings for Desperate Housewives, the hot new television show, are Bush states."

Leftorium,

Sodomy laws should have been left to the states and their laws. I did not say that people would support keeping sodomy laws on the books in view of today's "sex oriented" culture, but that should have been left to their decision, and sooner or later, probably sooner, all would have been repealed or changed. When the Supreme Court stepped in, the activist liberal judges took that decision away from the states... and as was correctly pointed out at the time, left the issue open to gay marriage, polygamy, and ultimately, who knows what else.

Sodomy, which at one time would have resulted in prison or even death has now become openly acceptable to many/most people, but not all, depending on their own values, morals, teachings, and personal beliefs. Eventually, gay marriage may have been accepted and laws enacted to permit it in individual states, and perhaps, all states at some time in the future.

But, that was not enough for the gay activists. They needed instant gratification. They couldn't wait for social norms and culture to catch up with their lifestyles. They wanted to force their lifestyle on all Americans. So what did they do? They turned to the liberal activist courts to force their lifestyle on all Americans -- to force their lifestyle and beliefs down the throats of all Americans, even though the majority disagreed with their lifestyle. They selected Massachusetts because of the way its constitution was worded, got a one vote majority from a liberal court, forced gay marriage on Massachusetts, and now -- using "The Full Faith And Credit Clause, Article IV, of the Constitution -- intend to finish their goal of cramming it down the throat of every last American regardless of traditions, beliefs, morals, desires, or even overwhelming votes to the contrary!

As to the Civil Rights issue. That was done by the courts also. The damage should be repaired to the Constitution and judges stopped from future activist decisions. To do that, I would Amend the Constitution to include and protect the racial civil rights issues. That would repair the damage done to the Constitution and include the protection in the Constitution. I would not, however, permit activists to include the gay rights protection at this time. Propose a separate Amendment if they want, but do not include it with the Civil Rights issues of race. I would then amend the Constitution to require strict constructionist interpretations and stop the concept of a "living Constitution" that can be amended and changed by activist judges at their own discretion!

AAR

It's great to see such vibrant and vigrous defense of marriage as being between a man and a woman. This gives me tremendous hope for America!!
:)

arron wrote, "In countries and states where gays can get married, we've seen no drop in the species ability to prolong itself, nor have we seen marriage between a man and a woman in any way threatened."

Wrong,
In the Scandinavian Countries, more than 50% of the children are born without benefit of married parents, before gay “marriage, 39%. . “the six years following the establishment of registered partnerships in Denmark (1990-1996), heterosexual marriage rates climbed by 10 percent, while heterosexual divorce rates declined by 12

AAR -

"So what did they do? They turned to the liberal activist courts to force their lifestyle on all Americans -- to force their lifestyle and beliefs down the throats of all Americans, even though the majority disagreed with their lifestyle. They selected Massachusetts because of the way its constitution was worded, got a one vote majority from a liberal court, forced gay marriage on Massachusetts..."

Who ever "forced" anything on anyone? If you live in Massachussetts and you don't want to enter into a gay marriage, then don't! How does simply allowing gay people to be married have any affect whatsoever on you and what you want to do? If a gay couple is married, does that in any way stop men and women from getting married to each other?

btw, as my previous post underscores, Massachussetts has the lowest divorce rate in the nation, and one of the highest marriage rates - and I'm talking about marriage between a man and a woman. Marriage as practiced strictly between men and women is very much alive in Massachussetts. Allowing gays to be married has had no affect at all on the desire of men to continue marrying women, and vice versa.

Note, sodomy according to the law, is classified as oral or anal penetration..."

and is sodomy betweem a married hetrosexual couple ok????

AAR -

"So what did they do? They turned to the liberal activist courts to force their lifestyle on all Americans -- to force their lifestyle and beliefs down the throats of all Americans, even though the majority disagreed with their lifestyle. They selected Massachusetts because of the way its constitution was worded, got a one vote majority from a liberal court, forced gay marriage on Massachusetts..."

Who ever "forced" anything on anyone? If you live in Massachussetts and you don't want to enter into a gay marriage, then don't! How does simply allowing gay people to be married have any affect whatsoever on you and what you want to do? If a gay couple is married, does that in any way stop men and women from getting married to each other?

btw, as my previous post underscores, Massachussetts has the lowest divorce rate in the nation, and one of the highest marriage rates - and I'm talking about marriage between a man and a woman. Marriage as practiced strictly between men and women is very much alive in Massachussetts. Allowing gays to be married has had no affect at all on the desire of men to continue marrying women, and vice versa.

marriage as an instution has changed in this country several ways,, Utah practices pologomy until it was a condition of statehood to outlaw it (note it is still practiced there but underground now). Black/white hetrosexually marriage was against the law in most states it one time or another... several states until recently allowed minors to marry.

so the state of marriage has been in flux in this country for a long time, and it we look at the bible (old testament) pologomy was practiced quite a bit.. so please tel me what marriage is to be protected by the admendment???

Rathaven -

"In the Scandinavian Countries, more than 50% of the children are born without benefit of married parents, before gay “marriage, 39%. . “the six years following the establishment of registered partnerships in Denmark (1990-1996), heterosexual marriage rates climbed by 10 percent, while heterosexual divorce rates declined by 12"

Birth rates are low, and have been low, in Scandanavia for some time. This is a reflection of the fact that Scandanavia enjoys a very high standard of living (quite a bit higher than in the US). There has long been a strong correlation between birth rates and standard of living - countries with the highest birth rates are also the ones with the lowest standard of living. As living standards rise, infant mortality falls, women tend to work in professional positions that leave less time for bearing and rearing children, and access to birth control increases - hence the overall birth rate declines. All of this has nothing to do with whether gay people - who won't have children in any case - can get married.

Bane,

The FF knew that they would not state everything in a single document. They knew that certain arguments and situations would arise that they had not thought of, and to deny that is obtuse. The FF enumerated certain subjects which were seen to be of upmost importance, but where not going to write every conceivable situation. This is why they wrote the 9th amendment, to let it be known that certain rights which had not yet been written into law would have the latitude to be discussed and later codified.

"...a core body of rights protected against the powers of the federal government would have to be specified, and the residue somehow protected in general terms. This is the compromise that we have inherited from them and that we live with, and struggle with, and benefit from, every day of our lives: in the first eight amendments of the Constitution, a carefully worded list of specific rights protected from encroachment by the federal government, together with the belief that there are not only rights protected by the states but a reservoir of other, unenumerated rights that the people retain, which in time may be enacted into law."

--Harvard historian Dr. Bernard Bailyn

so you can see that the FF knew that there would be extensions of enumerated rights in the future, so therefore left this footnote if you will, to let everyone know that while society changed and grew there would need to be flexible boundries to the framework, it just would take time for the instances to arise.

Spook,

regarding your situation involving the slippery slope of family members entering into marriage. The state can show a fairly "compelling" argument as to why the marriage of relatives can be made illegal. There is a pretty clear, quantitative base of evidence that the interbreeding of kin can cause harm to the genepool and place an undue burden on the child, therefore making it of interest to the state.

Aarontime,

First, in the case of Massachusetts, it was not the legislature -- elected by the people -- who decided they wanted gay marriage or voted for it. It was the Massachusetts Supreme Court who -- in a 4 to 3 ruling -- decided and for the people of Massachusetts -- they WOULD have gay marriage! The court, in their non-unanimous, 4-3 ruling directed the Legislature to rewrite the states marriage laws within six months and there was nothing the governor, legislature, or people could do to overturn that court ruling. By one lousy vote of a liberal judge, gay marriage was FORCED on the majority in Massachusetts.

Now, repeating myself, the activists plan to use "THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE", Article IV of the U.S. Constitution to FORCE that ruling on all states. And... if the right activist liberal judges are in place... they WILL make that decision, if not now, then eventually. History shows that to be the case. Perhaps President Bush's two appointments will stop it for now, perhaps they will be outvoted. Regardless, Supreme Court judges change their interpretation, under the concept of a "living Constitution". What was illegal yesterday may be ruled legal tomorrow, and vice versa, by the SAME Supreme Court, with or without different judges! Read your history. You don't have to go far from the issue either. Check the rulings on sodomy laws!

Do you think we don't understand the way the activist courts work? Do you really think we should take your word that liberals, gay activists, and activist liberal judges won't do in the future what they have done many times in the past? Anyone who believes that is living in another world, not the world of reality!!!

I don't care what they have in Massachusetts or California for that matter. The rest of the United States does not want it and should not be forced by the courts to accept it until such time as they do. If gay activists and liberals want gay marriage, then amend the Constitution to permit it. But they don't want to do that. Instead, the rest of us must try and amend the Constitution to keep the courts from forcing the views of the few on the majority.

What part of that do you not understand?

AAR

Eyes Closed,

Do you think I am going to accept your opinion or the opinion from a liberal Harvard professor that the Constitution meant that judges could do as they please and decide the Constitution means anything they say it means.

Even a moderately intelligent person with just a modest understanding of America history knows that no one -- until recent liberal and gay activists -- would ever, in the wildest stretches of their imagination, ever have believed or intended that gay marriage was a right -- a protected right -- under our Constitution. It takes a true liberal and activist liberal judges to come up with a warped ruling like that!

AAR

AAR -

" blah blah blah...gay marriage was FORCED on the majority in Massachusetts... blah blah blah...The rest of the United States does not want it and should not be forced by the courts to accept it until such time as they do... blah blah"

Again, AAR, how is gay marriage forced on anyone? Marriage is a private affair between two individuals. If you aren't gay, and don't want to marry someone of the same sex, how is gay marriage "forced" on you? How does a gay couple saying their "I do's" have any bearing on your life at all?

This whole blather about "forcing gay lifestyle" on others is a red herring. Conferring an equal right to marriage on a minority in no way abridges or has any impact at all on the rights of the non-gay majority.

Don't like gay marriage? Fine! Don't marry a gay same-sex partner! Allowing gays to get married only affects gays. It's as simple as that. What part of that don't you understand?

Surely, with all that is going on in the country and the world, there are more important things to discuss.

If it's a private affair Aaron, then gays can privately marry on their own without the state sanctioning it.

Once you allow the state to sanction it, no longer is it private in any sense of the word.

OhioGolfer,

In November 2003, the Supreme Court struck down the Texas sodomy law. According to the information I have, 13 states still had sodomy laws at that time. Four -- Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri -- prohibited oral and anal sex between same-sex couples. The other nine banned consensual sodomy for everyone: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia. Until that time, the issue of sodomy and sodomy laws had been a state by state issue.

As recently as 1960, every state had an anti-sodomy law. At the time the Supreme Court ruled against the Texas law, 37 states had already repealed their laws or the laws had been struck down by state courts -- probably by activist liberal judges. In any case, it was a decision that had been left to and made by the states -- right or wrong.

The 2003 Supreme Court's decision changed that and by the stork of their pen, made it a U.S. Constitution issue. Their decision was not unanimous either. It was another split decision -- which further proves it wasn't a decision based on what the Constitution actually said or intended, but rather on what those judges believed is should say. It was based on their opinion of what the Constitution should say at that time based on their view of "changing cultural and social practices". By the stroke of their pen, they in effect AMENDED the U.S. Constitution and changed its meaning -- not by a legitimate Constitutional Amendment ratified by the people, but one imposed by the courts! At least, however, the 6-3 decision was better than the many 5-4 decisions under which we've had to survive!

As further proof that the Supreme Court based their decision on their own personal views of "changing cultural and social practices", the 6-3 decision reversed a ruling in 1968 -- 17 years prior to that ruling -- which said that states could punish homosexuals for what such laws historically called deviant sex. The 1968 ruling was consistent too with the interpretation of sodomy laws throughout America's history (which would have made gay marriage illegal, since gay marriage involves sodomy). That earlier ruling, and the history and laws upon which it was based, further confirms that neither the U.S. Constitution nor the 14th Amendments, nor any other Amendments ever intended to legalize sodomy -- let alone gay marriage!

As to sodomy in a heterosexual marriage, you'd have to check your state laws to see when it was legalized, but according to the information I have, Ohio didn't have any anti-sodomy laws at the time of the 2003 ruling. Ohio, had made that decision at the state level as the issue had been decided for more than 200 years!

AAR

Aarontime,

You can "blah blah blah..." all you want to, or you can learn something about history and the Constitution before you trash the concept and wonder, some time in the future, what happened to what you believed were your rights.

There are many issues surrounding gay marriage. For some it is a moral and values issue. For some, they don't believe it is right for America. For some, they don't like it and don't want it.

The real issue -- the big issue -- with gay marriage is the Constitutional issue. I have gone through that and all you can do is blah blah blah. It is apparent you do not understand the Constitution nor the process for legally amending. You apparently do not understand that activist judges are in effect amending it all the time. Under your concept, you might just as well not have a Constitution. It doesn't mean the same or provide the same guarantees tomorrow that you think you have today. The judges would tell you what your protections and rights are tomorrow which may be different than what you thought they were today!

For whatever the reason, the majority of American people do not want gay marriage at this time.

WE DON'T WANT IT... PERIOD!

NO OTHER REASON NEEDED!!!

And that means Amend the U.S. Constitution!!!!!!!

AAR

Folks,

People like three eyes aarontime here, are the very people who are creating an ABERRATION in this country, I think it's HIGH TIME we take a STAND and strike these spineless,gutless worms back to HADES where they truly belong. AMEN??????

Let's get back to the foundation upon which we STAND, which is GOD ALMIGHTY OUR ROCK OUR SAVIOUR AND OUR FOUNDATION!!!

GOD IS THE SAME YESTERDAY,TODAY AND FOREVERMORE!!

WE NEED TO KEEP MORALITY IN THIS BLESSED LAND THAT WAS GIVEN TO US WHICH WAS BOUGHT AND PAID FOR WITH A PRICE, AND WE CAN'T TAKE THAT AWAY!!

Let me tell you folks, Lady liberty would not be standing here today if GOD did not have his MIGHTY hand of protection on her..............

I would like to say that I am proud to have President George w. Bush as my president to HELP DEFEND her today!!!!!!!!!

I would like to commend AAR,Warriornation,Freedom1,Nebraska militia, and many others in their unrelenting support for morality in America, May God richly bless you!!

I know I may have been sounding a little bit extreme! here lately, but I just want peop