[Cathryn Crawford]

"Be conservative with the Constitution," the ads say. "Don't amend it."

Nice. I agree.

[Scenic Sounds]

Well, we'll see how you feel about it when the day comes that you want to get married and the state has already sold out all of its marriage licenses.

[highlander_UW]

"Be conservative with the Constitution," the ads say. "Don't amend it."

Nice. I agree.

Normally I'd agree as well, except that we have judges legislating from the bench who seem unable to read the constitution as it is...so they need it clarified for them.

[puroresu]

If the choice was between leaving gay marriage to the states or making it a federal issue, many of us might agree.

However, once the U.S. Supreme Court edict comes down, ordering all fifty states to permit gay marriage, the issue of federalism will already have been breached.

Think back to, let's say, 1967. Suppose someone saw Roe vs. Wade coming, and proposed a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. People such as yourself might have opposed it, arguing that abortion should be a state issue. But once Roe came down, the feds took over the issue anyway, in a way that expanded federal power far beyond the abortion issue itself.

If we don't pass an amendment to ban gay marriage, the result won't be a "leave it to the states" policy. The result will be a federal judicial fiat forcing all fifty states to alter their marriage laws to accept gay marriage, which in turn will lead to additional fiats imposing gay adoption, gay child counselors, etc. on the states.