[Fishing-guy]

I agree. This ban on gay marriage can easily be done on the State level or in Congress. I do believe that certain legal protection should be extended to gay and lesbian unions.

Using a Constitutional amendment for special interest will only trivialize the importance of the Constitution. Next thing you know, every special interest group will be lobbying the President for their "important" amendment to the Constitution.

[jwalsh07]

This ban on gay marriage can easily be done on the State level or in Congress.

Exactly wrong. The courts are out of control. Constitutions and laws mean nothing to them when they have room to wiggle.

There are three ways to rein them in, impeach them, order them to leave marraige and abortion alone, or by a crisp , clear Constitutional Amendment.

The only one politically possible is an amendment.

Marriage has to be constitutionally defined in any case because when if indivdual states allow marriage outside of one man, one woman the feds have IRS, SS and medicare and medicaid issues revolving around who is married to whom.

An amendment is required, no doubt about it.

[puroresu]

I respect your love for the Constitution, but here are two questions for you, or for any other conservative who opposes a constitutional amendment:

Suppose gay marriage becomes the law in one state, let's say Massachusetts. Shortly thereafter, we start hearing sob stories from Katie Couric and Oprah on daily television about how these oppressed gay married couples are "prisoners" in the state of Massachusetts. We'll see Brucie from Boston on TV explaining that he had a wonderful job offer in Dallas, but couldn't accept it because his "husband" isn't legally recognized in Texas. We'll see Brunhilda from Worcester explaining that her plans to pursue an advanced degree at Northwestern University had to be dropped because her "wife" couldn't go with her to Illinois with the same legal recognition and protections.

And, of course, Brucie and Brunhilda will file lawsuits under the 14th amendment equal protection clause, and likely will win at the Supreme Court.

A) How do you stop that from happening?

B) Which would you prefer: A real, legitimately ratified constitutional amendment either banning gay marriage or leaving the issue up to the states, or a judicially created national right to gay marriage, imposed by fiat on the states by the federal courts?

[longtermmemmory]

First Amendment - Religion and Expression
Second Amendment - Bearing Arms
Third Amendment - Quartering Soldiers
Fourth Amendment - Search and Seizure
Fifth Amendment - Rights of Persons
Sixth Amendment - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions
Seventh Amendment - Civil Trials
Eighth Amendment - Further Guarantees in Criminal Cases
Ninth Amendment - Unenumerated Rights
Tenth Amendment - Reserved Powers
Eleventh Amendment - Suits Against States
Twelfth Amendment - Election of President
Thirteenth Amendment - Slavery and Involuntary Servitude
Fourteenth Amendment - Rights Guaranteed, Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process and Equal Protection
Fifteenth Amendment - Rights of Citizens to Vote
Sixteenth Amendment - Income Tax
Seventeenth Amendment - Popular Election of Senators
Eighteenth Amendment - Prohibition of Intoxicating Liquors
Nineteenth Amendment - Woman's Suffrage Rights
Twentieth Amendment - Commencement of the Terms of the President, Vice President and Members of Congress.
Twenty-First Amendment - Repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment
Twenty-Second Amendment - Presidential Tenure
Twenty-Third Amendment - Presidential Electors for the District of Columbia
Twenty-Fourth Amendment - Abolition of the Poll Tax Qualification in Federal Elections
Twenty-Fifth Amendment - Presidential Vacancy, Disability, and Inability
Twenty-Sixth Amendment - Reduction of Voting Age Qualification
Twenty-Seventh Amendment - Congressional Pay Limitation

All after the tenth were beratted as trivializing the constitution. Marriage is now a federal issue. No amount of wishful thinking can change that.

Voting age could have been achieved by law, congressional pay could have been done by law. All at some point were said to be able to be done by a state or fed law.

Homosexuals already have the ability to "protect". They can enter into cohabitation agreements. It has always existed. This is not about protection. Protection is a BStreisand argument. This is about recieving a public sanction of their private sexual behavior. How someone pops an orgasm is not subject to sanction under the law.

The left should view this as separation of adult sexual behavior and state.

There is no reason for civil unions. There is no reason for any equivalency but for the "m" word.

Marriage is an institution for the raising and creating of children not for government sanction of feeeeeeelings.

[Zack Nguyen]

This ban on gay marriage can easily be done on the State level or in Congress.

I'm afraid this just won't work. The Supreme Court, as presently constituted, will decree homosexual marriage for the entire country. That's why we need a Constitutional amendment - there is no other way that I know of.

[Protagoras]

I do believe that certain legal protection should be extended to gay and lesbian unions.

Why does sodomy define who should have "legal protection"? What do these people need that isn't already afforded them?

Using a Constitutional amendment for special interest will only trivialize the importance of the Constitution.

But using it for toliet paper by every politicion on every other issue hasn't?

[Unam Sanctam]

This ban on gay marriage can easily be done on the State level or in Congress.

Dream on. There's no stopping activist judges intent on imposing their agenda. The judges will change the Constitution whether you like it or not, and will make mincemeat of any statute on the matter, trumping it with a constitutional right, as they have done in Massachusetts.