[Imal]

There is no way I will ever support monkeying with the Constitution for issues like this that clearly should be decided by the states.

This is precisely the sort of thing the Constitution's architects warned us to avoid.

I hold no malice toward those who seek to ban gay marriage at the federal level -- I oppose it, myself -- but this is just another step in a continuing trend away from a true republic consisting of sovereign states and toward a growing monolithic federal despotism that will spell the death of a free America.

With the notable exception of the first ten, virtually every amendment to the Constitution has resulted in far more harm than good. This would be no exception.

We don't need to concentrate more power in the federal government. It has far too much power already, through grant and usurpation, with potentially ruinous results if we do not reign it in while we still can (if we still can).

Opposition to gay marriage is legitimate. Buying into the idea that the federal government is the only government we have, and the only place for addressing issues that have always been the domain of the states is wrong-headed and dangerous.

I urge those supporting a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, or any modifications to the United States Constitution to carefully consider the dangerous consequences of taking such and approach.

[William McKinley]

There is no way I will ever support monkeying with the Constitution for issues like this that clearly should be decided by the states.

The Constitutional amendment is required to make it an issue to be decided by the states. The way things are right now with the wording of the Constitution, if one state sanctifies a marriage, all other states are bound by the Constitution to recognize the marriage.

The proposed amendment prevents that and puts it back to the states, where it belongs. The amendment is perfectly in line with your stated desire, while the status quo is not.

[TonyInOhio]

Opposition to gay marriage is legitimate. Buying into the idea that the federal government is the only government we have, and the only place for addressing issues that have always been the domain of the states is wrong-headed and dangerous.

You're attempting to close the barn door after the horse is gone. The Full Faith and Credit clause has long ago been interpreted to bind each state by the actions of the others. This amendment is necessary to quarantine the "San Fransisco Virus" and prevent its spread to the remainder of the Union.

[TigersEye]

... this is just another step in a continuing trend away from a true republic consisting of sovereign states and toward a growing monolithic federal despotism that will spell the death of a free America.

Yes it is but that seems to be what the majority of Americans want; both liberal and conservative.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Banning slavery was a bad idea? Suuure it was. Or the 11th or 12th or 15th or 20th or 21st? Apparently you are not real familiar with the ACTUAL constitution.

However, there is no need for a constitutional amendment to stop this madness. Congress should use the "Exceptions clause" to remove the jurisdiction of the Court from ruling on the constitutionality of bans.

[hocndoc]

The President explained why it's necessary: to protect the State's laws from being overturned by individual judges and courts.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Bravo.

[rdb3]

We have heard all that before. It's a non-starter, IMHO.

FF&C from one state will force every other state to acknowledge these "marriages." A Constitutional ban is the right way to go.

Let the blow fall, I await its coming.

[Forgiven_Sinner]

I agree it is bad to federalize these issues and to enshrine them in the constitution. However, I support the amendment.

The constitutional amendment is necessary because homosexual marriage supporters have changed the definition of marriage in Massachusetts. Until that false court decision, marriage meant a man and woman. The MA supreme court expanded it to include same sex couples. If the damage were confined to MA, I would not want an amendment. But it is likely to spread to other liberal states and eventually will perculate to the Supreme Court.

The amendment restores the original definition to our court system. This change is necessary to preserve the status quo before the bad MA decision.