Why? Is it going to increase national security or be a vital cog in our national defense structure?
Is it going to help create a single job or business opportunities?
Is it going to improve or increase our national infrastructure?
Is it going to make life better in heterosexual married households?
I can think of nothing that such an amendment will do other than to assuage the feelings of the hystericals who obsess over the sex lives of other people.
It will keep the laws that protect married couples, from being applied to "couples" in which neither partner, nor the "relationship" as a whole, needs any such protection. Most such laws were passed when one spouse worked and the other raised the kids, and even those passed more recently mostly have the protection of the children as their basis, or of the "non-working" spouse. In a homosexual relationship, since both are the same, and there are no children from the relationship, the same factors of interest to society just don't exist.
What's even funnier is that not having bothered to do a minute of research on this, they chose instead to listen to the doom and gloom brigade, and are ready to declare defeat, in spite of the fact that States already posses the right not to honor the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution when it comes to marriages.
"There are three commonly recognized categories of marriages contracted in another state that will not be recognized in the forum state. First, marriages that are contracted by domiciliaries of the forum state in another state for the express purpose of evading the law of the forum state are deemed invalid. E.g., Loughran v. Loughran, 292 U.S. 216 (1934) (marriage entered into in Florida, in violation of D.C. prohibition against remarriage within certain amount of time after prior divorce, invalid in D.C.); Barbosa-Johnson v. Johnson, 174 Ariz. 567, 851 P.2d 866 (Ct. App. 1993) (appellate court holding that evidence did not sustain finding that parties had married in Puerto Rico for the purpose of evading the law of Arizona). See generally Uniform Marriage Evasion Act, 9 U.L.A. 480 (1942) (N.B.: The Uniform Marriage Evasion Act is superseded by the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act, and was officially withdrawn from consideration by the drafters in 1943).""Second, states have refused to recognize marriages that are solemnized in sister states when the parties are of a level of sanguinity that is forbidden in the forum state. E.g., McMorrow v. Schweiker, 561 F. Supp. 584 (D.N.J. 1982) (rule recognizing foreign marriages does not apply to incestuous marriages); Catalano v. Catalano, 148 Conn. 288, 170 A.2d 726 (1961); In re May's Estate, 305 N.Y. 486, 114 N.E.2d 14 (1953)."
"Third, states have refused to recognize marriages that are solemnized in sister states when the parties are not deemed of sufficient age to marry, as determined in the forum state. E.g., Wilkins v. Zelchowski, 26 N.J. 370, 140 A.2d 65 (1958)."
We should examine existing law before deciding that the best course of action is to hand more power to the Federal Government.
Luis
P.S. And if we don't overturn the Defense of Marriage Act before it's challenged in Federal Court, the next Amendment will be the one defining the right of same-sex couples to marry.