[ambrose]

Because some conservatives believe the Constitution shouldn't be littered with ammendments to address every perceived ill.

Gay marriage is an issue that should be left for the states.

The Defense of Marriage Act ensures that homo marriages in Vermont don't have to be recognized by Alabama.

[ambrose]

amendments

[jwalsh07]

The Defense of Marriage Act ensures that homo marriages in Vermont don't have to be recognized by Alabama.

BS.

[Guillermo]

The Constitutions Full Faith and Credit clause trumps any Federal law.

Homosexual "marriage," among other things, is one state being able to dictate to all others a changing of the definition of one of the oldest and fundamental institutions on earth.

It's a shame that it's come to this (even debating homosexual "marriage" shows how low we've sunk), but an amendment is the only way to stop one court or one state from making homosexual "marriage" legal all over the USA.

[Recovering_Democrat]

The Defense of Marriage Act ensures that homo marriages in Vermont don't have to be recognized by Alabama.

What does one do with the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution??

[CA Conservative]

The Defense of Marriage Act ensures that homo marriages in Vermont don't have to be recognized by Alabama.

Until the 9th Circus oveturns DOMA on the Full Faith and Credit Clause... They are already planning this attack. DOMA has not been challenged because you first have to have gays with a marriage that is legally recognized in one state in order to sue for recognition in another state. Do you really trust the courts to uphold DOMA? The same courts that gave us Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas and upheld campaign finance reform? You have a lot more faith in them than I do.

[Dolphy]

The Defense of Marriage Act ensures that homo marriages in Vermont don't have to be recognized by Alabama.

And what happens if someone goes to the Supreme Court to challenge this?

[Always Right]

Gay marriage is an issue that should be left for the states.

Maybe it should be, but a few judges are the ones overruling the will of the people.

[fqued]

"The Defense of Marriage Act ensures that homo marriages in Vermont don't have to be recognized by Alabama."

But that is precisely the problem--the US Constitution is above the US laws, and the Full Faith and Credit Clause probably trumps the DMA. Thus, a gay "marriage" in Mass might be forced upon Alabama.

Therefore, an amendment would be a sure way to do what you want.

[madison10]

Because some conservatives believe the Constitution shouldn't be littered with ammendments to address every perceived ill.

Gay marriage is an issue that should be left for the states.

I tend to agree with them (DeLay & Dreier) on this. There is just too much to be done to get an amendment in the constitution.

Question: If there is a law is being broken, why isn't it enforced? Why wasn't the mayor of San Fran arrested? You know darn well if this was about someone getting a tad too close to an abortion clinic he/her butt would be in jail, pronto. What are the enforcers afraid of? Are the gay/leftist/liberals too loud & media-backed to fight?

[Arkinsaw]

The Defense of Marriage Act ensures that homo marriages in Vermont don't have to be recognized by Alabama.

Neville Chamberlain waved a piece of paper also and thought he had peace in his time.

[Petronski]

The Defense of Marriage Act ensures that homo marriages in Vermont don't have to be recognized by Alabama.

I hope you are five members of the U.S. Supreme Court.

[onedoug]

Until it's overturned by the courts....

[rintense]

It will become a federal issue ANYWAY, when lawsuit, after lawsuit is appealed and eventually winds up in the hands of the SCOTUS.

Now tell me.

Who would you rather have decide this issue? The American people, or the courts?

[kabar]

Gay marriage is an issue that should be left for the states.

This is the same line being spouted by most of the weasel politicians like Kerry. The Federal Government must get involved. Kerry has taken the dodge that most of the politicians have used, i.e., "although I am personally against same sex marriage, it is up to the individual states to decide." Kerry also says his position is the same as Dick Cheney's.

The question I would pose to Kerry and those like yourself who share his position, is how do you handle same sex marriages (or even polygamy) in terms of social security, federal pensions, federal survivor benefits, etc.?

The point is that the Federal Government cannot avoid the issue or stick its head in the sand. It needs to have a definition of marriage in order to administer social security, federal pension plans, and survivors benefits just to name a few. I wish the press or someone would raise this aspect of the issue whenever guys like Kerry or yourself provide glib responses about it being a states' rights issue.

Please let me know how you would address these issues.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Because some conservatives believe the Constitution shouldn't be littered with ammendments to address every perceived ill.

And most Americans would agree with that.

But, is giving the people their just say when it comes to defining a pillar of our society really "litter"?

Are we supposed to fight this for decades...county by county, state by state....with our best hope reduced to repealing recognized "marriages"?

The Constitution is the people's tool. I cannot think of a more central issue nor more appropriate time this for the people to exercise their power.