I am a lawyer and we DO need a constitutional amendment to shut the entire debate down. It removes marriage from the federal arena by limiting marriage to only the common law definition. It leaves the individual states to decide what to do about marriage-lite laws.
There IS a need for the FMA because as http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1328306/posts?page=11 AND http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1327284/posts indicate, the homosexuals are going to pursue a longer term agenda. They see recruiting children as the key to overturning laws in the future.
As the first FR thread indicates, the HRC and PFLAG and GLSEN intent to forum shop to more sympathetic federal districts to impose the Mass. ruling upon the other states. This also includes efforts to impose civil unions from other states.
You have to fight the fight on all fronts not just one. Social Security reform is a now a part of the political landscape. I think the very FIRST question that has to be asked and answered IS: "Whose money is it?"
As the first FR thread indicates, the HRC and PFLAG and GLSEN intent to forum shop to more sympathetic federal districts to impose the Mass. ruling upon the other states. This also includes efforts to impose civil unions from other states.
I must agree. If the federal DOMA is challenged and the Court says it is unconstitutional, then the gays will do exactly what they did in MA< and immediately go out and marry. They won't wait for an amendment to be argued and proposed to the people for a vote.
That is exactly what happened in MA, there was no time to get an amendment to the ballot. It needs to be done Before, any challenge.