Thank goodness for tape recorders, because Conventioneer and I witnessed some crazy and amazing stuff in the panel on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Here are some high (or low, depending on how you're looking at them) points from the transcript (bold emphasis added by me):

Alan Chambers of Exodus International on why homosexual rights aren't civil rights: "Homosexuality is transient. It's not something that's permanent it's not something that's immutable it's something that can be changed. Therefore… this is not about removing rights of people but about protecting the rights we already have… The truth is we all have the same rights. No one has more rights than the other. The fact is the issue of marriage and hate crimes and those types of things seek to make certain people more equal than others and that's something that we're trying to rally against."

Peter Spriggs of the Family Research Council on the secret homosexual agenda: "What homosexuals want is an unlimited smorgasbord of relationship options whose only common denominator is that all of them are subsidized by the government. They do not want to participate in marriage as a normative institution. And that's I think Alan and I and most of us in the pro-family movement think that marriage should not just be an option--it should be the norm for people in a sexual relationship or for people raising children--and homosexuals don't believe that."

Scott, a dude in the audience who is gay and affiliated with the Log Cabin Republicans got up courage I probably wouldn't have had if I were in his shoes--he got up to the mic and directly called the panel on the bullshit that is the "pro-family" label. Check out this moment of awesomeness that finally allowed me to clap in good conscience:

"…with all due respect… you just said 'what homosexuals want"--how in the world can you speak for all homosexuals? … I don't know what you want because I'm not you, so with all due respect please don't speak for all homosexuals… Everyone likes to throw around the labels anti-family, pro-family--as a gay person, I would like to know how I am anti-family. Because roughly six months ago I was holding my grandfathers hand as he died, and I sat there at his bedside for two weeks… holding his hand while he died… sir, with all due respect, I am pro-family in every sense of the word… I am a proud Republican, I am a patriot, I support this president, I support this war on terror--this is where we need to be putting our focus, not on a constitutional amendment [against homosexual marriage]."

Holy shit, that was amazing. How refreshing to hear someone use the question time to address an actual error in the panel's judgment instead of just patting them on the back like everyone else! Bonus points for you, Scott. Of course, they didn't answer his question about why gay people are inherently "anti-family," but still. Small victories must be celebrated.

t-minus 35 minutes to Ann Coulter…