2004 Presidential Election.

[Azselendor]

Well, you know it's a telling sign that it most likely doesn't hold water when thier first option is to amend the federal constitution. To me, this says that not only will it not hold up to judicial review, but they already know that attempting to restrict the word 'Marriage' to become the eclusive trademark of hetrosexual relationships, is a lost cause.

Take the states that amended thier state constitutions to ban gay marriage. Honestly, how long will those amendments Last? Under federal Constitutional Law, EVERY state must give full faith and credit to the legal documents of each other. Under the law, the Judge has to rule that the state constitution is in conflict with Federal Constitution and must have the amendment on the state level stricken.

There is practically no grounds by which an anti-marriage law for gays will hold any ground without amending the federal constitution.

And Atrocities, if people read the fine print about Bush's Social Security plan, they will see something sneaking in the door with it. It's a nasty three-letter word.