Here are some great lines/arguments we can use in this debate--
I heard this on the car radio yesterday and cheered loudly! It's syndicated from Dave Ross on KIRO:
http://www.710kiro.com/daveross_commentary.jsp
I'm not familiar with this guy, but I wonder if we should get him on the new liberal radio network...
I've posted the transcript below (please read to the end for the best parts).
Feb 24, 2004
MARRIAGE AMENDMENT
Forming a more perfect union...
It's official. There is only one way to protect America from the uncontrolled outbreak of monogamy among homosexual couples -- and that is a constitutional amendment.
The President has now promised to push for one in order to "prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever."
But we don't know what the amendment will say, only that it will define marriage once and for all as the union of a man and a woman. Whoop-de-doo. Are men and women have no trouble uniting? Not that I can see. It's STAYING united they have trouble with.
I mean, as long as Congress is defining personal relationships -- we could use a little more guidance, because most of us get the sexual union part; we have reproduction figured out. What we have trouble with is how LONG does Congress think the sexual union should last?
It's bad enough when judges define what marriage is, but you know what's worse?
When people like Britney Spears define what marriage is.
And if you're passing an amendment to "fully protect" the institution of marriage, then shouldn't it include protection against the things that tend to break marriages up?
How about this: that no married person can be fired, laid off, or outsourced.
That no married person can be required to work weekends or past 5 p.m. on a weekday.
That no married person can be denied six weeks of annual vacation.
That no married person can be sent on a lengthy military deployment.
Yeah. Especially that last point. Talk about something that might make you consider the gay lifestyle...