[Melas]

Because, regardless of where you stand on homosexuals and marriage, the constitution wasn't penned to manage the behavior of citizens. It exists to limit the powers of government. This proposed amendemnt is not only wrong, it's a constitutional travesty.

[rintense]

How can you say that when the very document itself has to be defended from activist judges? I guarantee you that if gay marriage is made legal, you can kiss the Constitution goodbye. We're aleady seeing judges making their own laws. Who or what is going to stop them from continuing these actions if gay marriage becomes legal? You want to talk about a slippery slope... Having people, elected officials and judges make their OWN laws should scare the bejesus outta everyone here.

IMO, this amendment would protect the Constitution, not weaken it.

[kabar]

the constitution wasn't penned to manage the behavior of citizens. It exists to limit the powers of government.

If that is indeed the case, then why do we have the following amendments: Amendment 13 [abolition of slavery]; Amendment 16 [Income Tax]; and Amendment 19 [Women's Right to Vote].

The Constitutional Amendment route is the only way to get the people involved in this issue. I would rather have 75% of the States approve an amendment to the Constitution than have it legislated from the bench. How else can we develop a definition of marriage to administer federal programs such as social security, federal pensions and survivor benefits, etc. ?

[Recovering_Democrat]

Because, regardless of where you stand on homosexuals and marriage, the constitution wasn't penned to manage the behavior of citizens. It exists to limit the powers of government. This proposed amendemnt is not only wrong, it's a constitutional travesty.

So how does one correct the societal travesty of gay 'marriage'? I think it is too easy to say "get rid of the lousy judges" (and I recognize some may say this Constitutional amendment is an "easy way out").