[RJCogburn]

This is a subject not appropriate for a constitutional amendment. More like political posturing.

What ever happened to that flag burning amendment anyhow?

[Akira]

Agreed. I believe, as any dictionary will tell you, that marriage is between a man and a woman. Period. To make it a constitutional amendment is a joke.

[xzins]

I don't mind it being a constitutional amendment.

However, I think the real problem is life-tenure and appointment of Scotus and other justices.

I'm in favor of a constitutional amendment in which we change to an elective judiciary with a 6 year renewable term. They are acting on political whim anymore, anyway. They might as well face political consequences.

The people can decide their judges as well as they can decide their other officials.

[RobbyS]

You would rather let a narrow majority of one state court in effect amend the constitutions of every other state? Gay marriage is based on the false notion that men and women are interchangeable beings, so that marriage can redefined by the stroke of a pen. A natural institution is thereby replaced by an artificial one.

[Looking for Diogenes]

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION NOT RATIFIED BY THE STATES
During the course of our history, in addition to the 27 amendments that have been ratified by the required three-fourths of the States, six other amendments have been submitted to the States but have not been ratified by them.

Beginning with the proposed Eighteenth Amendment, Congress has customarily included a provision requiring ratification within seven years from the time of the submission to the States. The Supreme Court in Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939), declared that the question of the reasonableness of the time within which a sufficient number of States must act is a political question to be determined by the Congress.

And so on...(follow the link for the text of the six proposed amendments which were actually submitted to the states for ratification.)

[Ronly Bonly Jones]

A Supreme Court ruling mandating gay marriage is a gun held in the face of every straight Christian who rejects homosexuality. In ten years it will be impossible to keep your job if you're open in your opposition to homosexual marriage.

[puroresu]

#####This is a subject not appropriate for a constitutional amendment. More like political posturing.#####

No, we wouldn't want to desecrate the Constitution by adding an amendment via the appropriate constitutional ratification process. That might threaten all the amendments the "liberal" judges have added to the Constitution over the years on such issues as school prayer, Nativity scenes, nude dancing, abortion, sodomy, reapportionment, political speech, and the death penalty, not to mention threatening future court-created amendments such as the ones mandating gay marriage and nullifying the 2nd amendment (coming soon courtesy of our five or six robed masters).

Besides, an amendment banning gay marriage would ban something all fifty states already ban. Federal fiats are supposed to force states and localities into obeying the centralized government in Washington, like the aforementioned rulings on abortion and sodomy did. It's far better that we sit here and let some appointed judges impose gay marriage on the fifty states rather than risk doing harm to state's rights by ratifying an amendment, with the states' consent, allowing them to do what they already want to do.