[antiRepublicrat]

Most amendments are either involve government procedural issues or the guarantee or expansion of rights of the people. Those that affect a group of Americans negatively or prohibit them from engaging in certain acts are generally considered to be the worst -- the 16th and 18th.

I don't really care much about the issue since a couple of gays marrying doesn't affect me, but I do have a general problem with an amendment that is restrictive to the population. It's like with flag burning, where I strongly advocate beating the crap out of a flag burner, but won't advocate a restrictive amendment to ban it.

[Mich0127]

I think we at least need the threat of an amendment. The problem here is caused by liberal judges who ignore the will of the people and try to impose their beliefs on the general public.

Do I think the amendment will pass though: likely not. The last amendment imposing negative liberty was the Prohibition, and we all know how well that worked. However, we need to send a message across, and if an amendment or the threat of one will do the trick, so be it. Something needs to be done. We have to draw a line and protect the sanctity of marriage. Because if gay marriages are allowed, then we run into a slippery slope. Who is to say that a person can't marry their pet, their tree, their house, or even themselves? These justices are making a mockery of tradition and morality and a line must be drawn!