[BikerNYC]

Then we agree. The issue of gay marriage has nothing to do with protecting children or defending the institution of marriage, which is supposedly so sacred but is entered and left at will in this country (you would think that if people thought it really was sacred they would take it more seriously).

All of this claptrap about a constitutional amendment (something which, if passed, is destined to mimic the history of the 18th Amendment) is really about whether or not we approve of people having sex with a member of the same sex. I agree. That's exactly what this is about. And it is disgusting to me that we would tinker with the most cherished and venerated public document created over the last 200 years over something so crass.

[RobbyS]

A more useful comparison would be the 19th Amendment. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a woman from voting in a federal election or being elected to federal office. The 19th Amendment simply took away the authority of the states to keep women from voting and holding federal office. When the 19th Amendment was passsed, all but a handful of states had already given women the right to vote. The basic problem is, as everyone has been pointing out, that the Courts are now acting as sitting constitutional conventions. If the gays want to be married, it OUGHT to be THEY who must get an amendment to the Constitution, not their opponents.

[Kozak]

I absolutely disagree. Gay marriage is one more blow against marriage and children which are already reeling from the prior damage done, and I oppose it. It's been pushed to the point of a need for a constitutional amendment because a samll group of elitists is bent on imposing their will on the majority.