[Laissez-faire capitalist]

You have to look at two statements from Priebus:

“You can’t federalize that kind of mandate”

“Individual states can make that decision on their own”

If you push for a federal constitutional amendment ban on same-sex marriage (a federal mandate), then you take the issue away from the states to make their own decisions on this.

Given that Priebus said that 1.) “you can’t federalize that kind of mandate” and 2.) that “individual states can make that decision on their own,” there is no way to harmonize both statements and follow them up by saying that Romney still supports a federal constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Romney looks like a champ in playing contexts. Finger to the wind, trying to please everybody. It’s risible of course because it becomes a matter of trying to read the tea leaves or coffee grounds.

The amendment question should be put square to him, and don’t let him squirm out of it (unless it’s to acknowledge that a president doesn’t get any legal say in that process anyhow).

[ansel12]

If each state has a different definition of marriage, then how do families move from one state to another?

[nickcarraway]

If the President decided to announce that he supports gay marriage, then a Constitutional amendment is a moot issue. Obviously, if there was anywhere near the level of opposition to it, the President wouldn't have take this step.

The real question is how long states can not recognize gay marriages. I have never understood the rationalization that it could be illegal in one state and legal in another. A couple that's married in one state and moves to another, still files as a married couple. Obama killed DOMA.