Why is that hilarious?

What ISN'T funny about it?

Well, I didn't realize past precedent was an excuse for violating the constitution.

Frankly, I'd be thrilled if the lottery was struck down as well. It'd be like Christmas!

The Left loves the lottery, but hates the gay marriage ban. The ACLU might well take down the former uninentionally in taking down the latter. That just strikes me as funny.

Oh, Bill. You know as well as I do that if the gay marriage amendment *is* struck down, there will be powerful (very powerful, much more so than what's backing the GMA) forces protecting the lottery. You'll see folks in office dithering and passing the buck and studiously ignoring what's in front of them, waiting for the anti-lottery move to die down.

BTW, it's not a "gay marriage" amendment. Call it what it is: the marriage redefinition movement. There's a small number of folks who want to redefine marriage to suit themselves. Calling it "marriage redefinition" puts the onus back on the folks pushing for it, rather than making pro-marriage folks defend themselves against the "inclusion" of gay marriage. I'm surprised no one's caught on to this yet.

I disagree with Mike. About all you can call it, using your logic, is a "marriage definition amendment." No "re-." I'm pro-marriage. I am married, and I hope that my gay friends and neighbors can someday have the same rights as my wife and I enjoy. Their having equal family rights would do nothing whatsoever to endanger our marriage. There is nothing to "protect" except bigotry.. And speaking of powerful forces..

Mike, I thought you were sorta-libertarian. It surprises me that you would say something like "There's a small number of folks who want to redefine marriage to suit themselves." Substitute the word "equality" for "marriage" in that sentence and you're talking straight out of the segregationist South.

Now, I fully agree with Bill that if a constitutional breach happened with the lottery amendment (or with #2 on the 2002 ballot, either one) then it should be appropriately challenged; but I don't find that funny in the slightest, as it would represent a giant sucking waste of taxpayer money.

Joe:

Your gay friends and neighbors already have the same "rights" that you and your wife enjoy. They can already marry people of the opposite sex, just like you can. They have equal "family" rights as well. Gay people are just as empowered to raise their own children as heterosexual people are. What they want is to change what marriage is based upon their belief that homosexuality is not a sin and not a choice.

Other people have other beliefs. Some people believe that homosexuality is a choice and a sin. (This isn't stuff they make up, it is based upon thousands of years of Biblical tradition and some would argue, common sense.) I believe the Navajo Indian nation just banned gay marriage based upon their ancient beliefs as well.

Discriminating against a person because of their race is bigotry. Race is something beyond their control. Furthermore, the Bible, when properly interpreted clearly makes bigotry a sin. It is self-evident that bigotry is wrong.

It is not self-evident that homosexual behavior is beyond a person's control. It is not self-evident that homosexuals are 'born that way'. There is actually quite a bit of debate on this issue. In order to have an opinion on the issue one way or the other, you have to take a position based upon your beliefs. Thus to accuse people who have beliefs one way or the other of being bigots is simply closed minded.

All of that having been said... I agree that if marriage was to be redefined to include homosexuals, it would not harm the strength or validity of any heterosexual marriage. On the same note, if homosexuals are granted the right to civil unions then their unions are no less valid simply because they aren't called marriages. By saying civil unions aren't good enough; homosexuals are revealing their hand to show that their true intention is not to gain 'civil rights' but to force everyone to accept their chosen lifestyles despite their own personal beliefs. It's just another attempt to muddy the issue enough so that people make your mistake; the mistake of thinking that homosexuality and race are the same thing. They are different; although I admit that your approach of name calling has had a fair amount of success especially in the liberal media.

Actually the present case is significantly different from the lottery amendment situation -- The lottery amendment has already been ratified by the people on a statewide ballot. Procedural challenges *before* ratification are different. Read some the AG opinions on this.

freespeech, did you read the whole post? The "UPDATE" clarified the difference and explained how if the ACLU wins this lawsuit, it would not affect the lottery amendment.

Oh, by the way, the gay marriage amendment procedural challenge probably will fail.

You really should read Roger Abramson's "Political Notes" column in the Nashville Scene today. Read the second item, titled "Wishful Thinking."

Here is the LINK.

The will of the people should not be thwarted??

The elementary lesson we all should have learned about the Constitution is that it was intended to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Indeed, it was intended to thwart the will of the people.

What would it mean if the referendum is not approved by the voters?