"For a self-styled "civil liberties" group, that's rather ironic."

I've never heard a definition of civil liberties that is actually tyranny of the majority.

If the majority had its way throughout history, we'd still have "separate but equal" schools. The ACLU's job is and has always been to protect the rights of those who fail to fit within the mainstream and who challenge authority, be it challenging sedition laws during World War I or ensuring that government does not endorse religion (it prejudices the government and poisons the church).

And just because the law regarding public notice was not enforced the last time doesn't mean it shouldn't be this time. If one murderer gets away free, are we then obligated to stop enforcing murder statutes? Based on your logic, yes.

Jason, the public had more than six month's notice as to the content of the proposed amendment.

The thing is, if the ACLU wins the suit, the legislature can merely re-pass the same law in early 2006, with six month's public notice, and it could still be on the ballot, if my reading of the law is accurate.

Bill, I'm very worried that this action will take away from the ACLU's ability to drive the Boy Scouts from the public arena. How in the world will the ACLU be able to protect us all from the evil Boy Scouts of America (those religious bigots) if so much of their time and other resources are tied up in keeping the people of Tennessee from exercising their right to try to modify their state constitution. Guess they'll just have to have a giant fund raiser. I'd certainly be willing to give them my two cents worth.

Jorg,

That's one of the funniest things I've read in weeks. Thanks for the much-needed laugh.

When Georgians voted last year for a ban on gay marriage, a caller to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's "Vent" feature commented: "I bet an amendment banning interfaith and interracial marriages would pass in Georgia, too."

Give this some real thought.

Donna Locke,
sister of a gay woman murdered in a hate crime in Tennessee

"Give this some real thought"

Good anecdotal example.

Eric Holcombe,
taxpayer, partially funding correctional officers including officer Wayne Morgan, killed by inter-racial couple in a hate crime.

If the ACLU prevails then the process will have start all over again. We can not simply pass the bill in early 2006. The soonest it could be on the ballot would be 2010.

I stand corrected.

i just figured that because the law had to pass two successive General Assemblies, it could just be re-passed in 2006, meeting that requirement.

I think this headline says it all Ford and Rockefeller Foundations offer ACLU $1.15m to not Support Terrorism: ACLU Refuses says it all. Don't you?

The hypocrisy and loud faux conservatism of those factions so intent on minding everyone else's business for them would be comical if it were not so dangerous. It's the sort of thing that gets people killed. I know. And it's the sort of thing that, along with the immigration issue and weariness of the general corruption, will eventually birth one, and probably two, more viable political parties in this country. I hear and read the thoughts of the disenchanted every day. More than a few are people highly stationed in the Republican and Democratic organizations.

Why a constitutional amendment? Aren't constitutions official documents that confer rights rather than deny them?

How does the union of a gay couple threaten my 38-year heterosexual marriage?

Insider, I think that their logic comes from the Declaration of Independence: "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it". I.e., yesterday's Boston Tea Party would be today's terrorism. The Patriot Act only helps in this regard.

The problem with ACLU's thinking is that today's current "terrorists" are not abolishing a government (indeed, for the most part they are not U.S. citizens) but rather attempting to abolish us in general.