[Cathryn Crawford]

It's not about that; it's just about taking something too far (a Constitutional amendment), when it's something that can be decided state to state.

[Scenic Sounds]

Federalism, huh? Damn, you've turned me around again, Cathryn.

But, what about Article IV, Section 1:

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."

Will this mean that sensible folks in California will be required to acknowledge the legitimacy of the crazy marriages that the screwballs in Texas might allow?

[Zack Nguyen]

It's not about that; it's just about taking something too far (a Constitutional amendment), when it's something that can be decided state to state.

Unfortunately, that's not where this is going. Given the chance the Supreme Court will mandate nationwide homosexual marriage with the stroke of a pen. No one familiar with this court's decisions can doubt it for a moment. The states will not be allowed to make the decision, because the overwhelming number of them would choose not to enact homosexual marriage.

In my opinion, your position is like bringing a knife to a gun fight.

[truthandjustice1]

If only this were a state issue. The Equal Protection Clause makes this a Federal issue, sadly. That's why a Constitutional Ammendment is necessary.