[Sabertooth]

"I still think an amendment giving Congress the power to resolve this matter is best. But nobody listens to me. I dislike the idea of an amendment that precludes a majority from deciding the issue, one way or the other."

Well, it precludes an Orwellian majority. Marriage already has meaning, and a definition.

What is the sense of empowering the majority with the ability to vote that fish are frogs or cats are dogs?

"And it is a federal issue of course, it has to be, for reasons which we both know. Now I have to weigh an amendment that trumps the rogue courts (or indeed rogue state legislatures), but also trumps my "right" to have the majority agree with me some day. Those are two trumps cards that when played together cause me cognitive dissonance.

The CMA is a dirty fix to the immediate symptom of the rogue judiciary.

We just don't have time for the necessary impeachments.

[Torie]

Well, it precludes an Orwellian majority

I strongly dissent from the notion that those that think that one adult committed to another desiring to seal the bond in marriage, who are not within the strictures of cansanguinity, is "Orwellian." I strongly dissent from that. Orwell was all about the issue of killing off the human spirit for self realization in favor of some impersonal state goals, achieved by evil ends. The analogy is inapposite and tendentious.

I also strongly dissent from the notion that this issue should be loaded in process for one side or the other. That is a recipe for toxicity in the public square, as we have seen over and over again.

Give democracy a chance. I think Americans overall by and large make intelligent choices over time. I am generally amazed at their good judgment.