[DAnconia55]

Anyone still think this is a losing issue?

If the polling data is accurate, no.
And it would be my personal desire to not have gays call their 'arrangements' marriage.

I'm VERY concerned with the idea that the Federal government should define and regulate marriage. Regulate is what they do, after all...

Ideally, the gays would back off and choose another name.

Depending on the wording, and given IRONCLAD assurances there would be no interpretations allowing for the expansion of government law, or the ability of the courts to make new law from the Amendment, (For example Federal conditions for a Federal marriage license - did you consider that?) then I might vote for it.

[Antoninus]

Depending on the wording, and given IRONCLAD assurances there would be no interpretations allowing for the expansion of government law, or the ability of the courts to make new law from the Amendment, (For example Federal conditions for a Federal marriage license - did you consider that?) then I might vote for it.

No provisions for a "Federal marriage licence" are necessary at all. The text of the amendment should be simple and straight forward. Four or five sentences max.

We're not trying to do anything but set up a bulwark so that the institution of marriage as it applies to citizens of the United States is set in stone for as long as the republic lasts. No more, no less.