[RightDemocrat]

I agree with this suggestion. A constitutional convention would seem to be a more realistic goal than going through Congress if we really want to stop same sex marriage from becoming a reality in all 50 states.

[GSlob]

A Constitutional Convention would not have any limits on what it could do - it could completely scrap the existing Constitution and come up with something else, totally different. And I do not see any Jeffersons and Madisons to put there.

[Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin]

Nothing the bubbleheads in D.C do, makes any sense anymore. Besides, this is just a smokescreen to make everybody forget about the sham of border protection we have, so they can just sit in their coo-shee chairs and say, oh now looky we passed thus and such. But yet, the illegal invaders continue to stream across the borders...

[Kahonek]

A constitutional convention is certainly NOT the conservative approach here. It is likely that the constitution would be gravely, if not mortally, wounded in the process.

I doubt that it will take the replacement of 18 senators to get this amendment out of the Senate. If you look at the rationales that have been offered by various Senators for their votes, it seems that all it will take to change their votes is a successful court challenge of the federal DOMA. Since DOMA is pretty clearly unconstitutional, I don't think we have long to wait for that.

[backtothestreets]

Excuse me, but I'd much rather have an amendment that returns the conferring of marriage to the churches. All the state constitutional amendments, and the proposed federal amendment just continue to government grab of religious rites once the sole domain of churches. Government should be limited to recording marriages when the married couple volunteers the information.

Show me one state constitutional amendment that truthfully addresses same-sex marriage. As with the proposed federal amendment they leave open marriage of trans-gendered (sex change operations) for any number of court interpretations.

And none, not one seeks to protect marriage from punitive taxing as was done for many years. Why even bother calling these amendments marriage protection?

The real effect of these actions is to further undermine the influence of religion in our nation by demonstrating it is the government people should turn to when moral issues arise. It's the continuation of the "progressive thinking" of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century. In their own ways, both the Democrats and the Republicans are further distancing religious morality and supplanting it with a new religion, a religion of government.