"John D. Giorgis" wrote:
> Nevertheless, I think that we also need to come to grips, however, with the
> fact that as recent court decisions have sparked debates on these laws and
> Constitutional amendments that the pro-homosexual marriage side of the
> debate has been losing these debates quite resoundedly. A federal
> Constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage that was
> dead-in-the-water just two years ago now has majority support in the polls,
> and will likely be endorsed by an incumbent President seeking re-election
> in a few days. Moreover, not a single major candidate for the Democratic
> Presidential nomination has come out in favor of legalizing homosexual
> marriages nor for the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision - not even the
> leading candidate from its own State, nor Howard Dean, the only major
> candidate to vote for civil unions, and yet who rarely made it an issue.
> It is very clear which way the political tide is turning on this issue.
I'm not comfortable with amending the Constitution willy-nilly. And I
find it ironic that the group pushing hardest for amendments lately (at
least in my perception) are titled "conservatives".
I think that this is something that the states have to work out,
individually and amongst themselves. (I feel the same way about
abortion, and that going beyond merely striking down the Texas abortion
law and enumerating policy was a bad idea in Roe v. Wade.)
There's a petition you can sign on-line saying that you oppose the
Federal Marriage Amendment; I'll provide the link to interested
parties. I do not agree with all of the policies of the group
sponsoring that particular petition. If there's enough demand that I
post the link on-list, I will, but failing that, I'll mail it off-list
to those who are interested.
Julia
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
