[bramps]

Is there a reason not to immediately push for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman?

[Viennacon]

It would never get the votes required. The country is now majority leftist. Sorry, that’s the way it is. As such, rightists are enemies of the state

[BRK]

Is there a reason not to immediately push for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman?

The best reason I can think of is that it is a waste of time. If the hearts of people are not changed, we are going down and going down hard. We need to find ways to survive the fall and come through on the other side.

[DAC21]

“Is there a reason not to immediately push for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman?”

No way it would get 2/3 of the States to pass it, Marxists liberals have won the battle of the minds and hearts of the youth. The Boomers turned out to be not very good at parenting or fighting the enemy within. Of course that is a generalization.

[Drew68]

Is there a reason not to immediately push for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman?

Sure. It would never pass. And an Amendments Convention would probably cost us even more rights.

[Uncle Miltie]

Disband the courts.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

The only way to fix this, at this point, is to follow Mark Levin’s suggestion of following the law in Article V and having a convention of the states.

If we tried to pass an amendment through any other process, the media and the ‘hip’ crowd would popularize shooting it down.

No, it will have to come from a consortium of like-minded states who share a majority and who outnumber the left-leaning states.

[rikkir]

Is there a reason not to immediately push for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman?

To what end? The court has blatantly ignored the constitution, not just with the last 2 cases, but back to Roe v. Wade. They would just ignore your new amendment.

[demshateGod]

Yes. Because it would be a waste of time. The oligarchy is in control and they’ll have none of it.

[bjorn14]

The problem with that is you would never get the state legislatures to adopt it. In all states, except 2 SSM was done by legislative fiat. You would need 37 States to pass it. So a CA IMHO is DOA.

[generally]

The reason to do it is because it ought to be done. There is no reason not to do it.

I would rather tell my children and grandchildren I tried and failed rather than telling them I didn’t try at all.