Senate Majority to protect marriage 49-48

Though this is not a "super" majority and it did not pass just yet. Your Uncle Tim is still hopeful, do not lose faith people!

On another note Senior Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy, who we all know is a pillar of restraint and constitutional morality had this to say about the President's push to get the amendment passed:

"The Constitution is too important to be used for partisan political purposes. It is not a billboard on which to hang political posters or slogans seeking to stir public passions for political ends"

Oh really Patty me boy, really! So it is not ok to amend our constitution to uphold a long held tradition, but if you want to twist its stanzas and meaning to say... Oh I dunno, "its ok to kill babies" or... Let's see "remove Christians/Christianity from the public square" that's just fine. Maybe next time we should try that, yes that's it, we'll just close our eyes, point at the constitution and then whichever part we land on we'll make believe it means defense of marriage!

Let's see, Eany, Meany, Miney, Moe. Ah this one will do... Article IV Section 3 says:

"New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress."

Ok, so we'll pretend that when they say "States" they really mean "Hetrosexual couples" and when they say "Union" they really mean "Marriage". But when they say "Parts of States" we'll act like that really means "Gay Couples".
No? C'mon the liberals have been doing this for years, I mean its a living, breathing document right? Anyway, its not like it's the law of the land or anything, right? Oh...It is? Right, well I guess that wouldn't really be ok then.