[fieldmarshaldj]

Actually, it is a Constitutional issue. You can’t have one state recognizing homosexual marriage where others can’t, especially since you have the likelihood of a couple “marrying” in a pro- state and then moving to an anti- state and having it end up in the courts (thereby giving activist judges an excuse to force it on an anti- state). This should be a Constitutional Amendment and put a screeching halt to this absurd notion.

[txrangerette]

There should be a consitutional amendment, but there isn’t one, is there?

So, yes you can have some states doing it and others not.

As bad as that is, you can have it, because you do have it.

[Happy Rain]

Until the Defense Of Marriage Act aka DOMA is struck down by the SCOTUS, traditional marriage states do not have to recognize homosexual "weddings" from other states.

Of course Obama already deemed DOMA “unconstitutional” guess he's the tenth judge, and is now breaking constitutional law by not defending the federal law in court...

...oh and Zero "says" he believes marriage is one man and one woman...lie # 64925486654.

[conservativejoy]

Newt is supporting a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage. It was posted on FR yesterday, but the false accusations keep being made.

[avacado]

"Actually, it is a Constitutional issue."

No it is not! The federal government has no business dealing in mariage, hetro or homo. I'm divorced, aka single, and because of my non-marriage status at my income level I pay $4000.00 per year more in federal income taxes. Why should I be punished by the federal government because I am single? Why should a married couple be rewarded by paying less in federal income taxes? It's social engineering and the federal government has no business in social engineering. And don't get me started on the 'child' deductions and the 'child' $1500 a year tax credit. Paying people to have babies! Pffffttt...

The federal government needs to butt out of people's lives with their tax preferences.

[Road Glide]

“Actually, it is a Constitutional issue. You can’t have one state recognizing homosexual marriage where others can’t, especially since you have the likelihood of a couple “marrying” in a pro- state and then moving to an anti- state and having it end up in the courts (thereby giving activist judges an excuse to force it on an anti- state). This should be a Constitutional Amendment and put a screeching halt to this absurd notion.”

Of course you are right, but that isn’t going to happen.

Here’s why it won’t:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2843523/posts?page=48#48

Eventually, the proponents of the gay agenda are going to win this one, “through the courts”...

I don’t like it any more than you do.