[Protagoras]

We simply disagree. And if you look at the history of amendments you will see the law of unintended consequences applies.

We need less federal control, not more.

And if there was to be an amendment I think it should be to remove the requirement that states must recognise each others marriages.

Then states can do what they want and suffer or enjoy the consequences.

[B Knotts]

And if there was to be an amendment I think it should be to remove the requirement that states must recognise each others marriages.

I could go along with that. That could even be the Marriage Amendment.

[Jim Noble]

And if there was to be an amendment I think it should be to remove the requirement that states must recognise each others marriages.

That is a very good idea, but it does not attack the root of the problem.

The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that the power of the Judicial branch should be radically circumscribed, directly, by a Constitutional amendment removing court jurisdiction over a broad range of domestic affairs.

That way, the battle would only have to be fought once.

As it is, with a so-called "marriage" amendment, court decisions requiring constitutional amendments will proliferate much faster than teh Constitution can be, or should be, amended.