[sinkspur]

Well, you ought to be happy, in any event.

As it is, it appears that the Marriage Amendment is DOA in the Congress anyway.

[KantianBurke]

Not really. Sad statement of our times that an amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a women is having trouble. Of course if this were a more rational era such a question wouldn't come up in the first place and Barney Frank would be a bartender in Proviencetown.

[WOSG]

"As it is, it appears that the Marriage Amendment is DOA in the Congress anyway."

That is perhaps true, but that dosnt mean the amendment shouldnt be supported. Supporting FMA now is a bit like the 'preemption' policy of the Bush admin on terror threats; its less disruptive to clarify now then later. If and when federal courts open it up, it will 'hit home'. It is like the balanced budget amendment, a generally good public policy choice that some are not comfortable enshrining in the Constition unless backed into it.

The real problem are the activist judges imposing a solution against the democratic will and legislative process. The real solution is less a single amendment but a wholesale curbing of the imperialist tendencies of the judicial elites in this and other issues.