That's what I meant. Guess I didn't make myself very clear
I had something like that in my mind, remembering the debate last year(?), when Geroge W. called for constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage.
Hi Chrissi!

Yes, what George W. Bush wanted to do (and STILL wants to do) is ratify the US Constitution, banning same sex marriages nationwide. Here in Indiana, Hoosiers want to ratify the state constitution. But the US Constitution always trumps State Constitutions. And this gets into a little thing called "
states rights", something which as been a sticking point in this country since its founding. In fact, it was the tampering and meddling with states rights by the Federal Government that triggered the American Civil War when the US finally banned slavery in this country. Some Southern states said "HELL NO" to it, seceded and formed their own country, the Confederate States of America. Americans don't like it when the Federal Government tampers with states rights.
From what I've noticed, even Americans wishing a ban on same sex marriage are against a Federal ban on it, simply because they don't like the idea of the Federal Government telling their particular state what to do. It tramples on their state's rights. They would rather handle it on a state level, and this is why so many current politicians won't even go near the topic of a Federal ban on same sex marriage. To say they support it probably means they won't get elected, and to my knowledge, only two or three current 2008 candidates have admitted they support a Federal ban.
And so here we are today. You saw the map of the US up above. There is a little bit of everything and anything in this country. We have the full gamut, from legalized same sex marriage (Massachusetts), to legal civil unions, to state bans on same sex marriage and civil unions... or both! And then, we have state like Indiana that haven't decided WHAT they want to do, but most of us know what will end up happening here in Hoosierland/Jesusland. Anyone care to take a guess?
