The left tries to say that an Amendment is somehow anti-democratic. That's so untrue. It must pass Congress by 2/3 and be ratified by 3/4 of the states. If we win, the people will have spoken. Again, if I thought we could win on that grand of a scale banning civil unions and all benefits associated with marriage, I would support it in a minute. No conflict with representative gov't in that for me. I just don't think we can sell it to the extreme majority necessary to pass it without leaving the benefit portion to the states.
Maybe that explains my position better. We can't go for everything and lose the vital thing -- getting the courts out of the equation.
Oh, the courts have got to get out of the activism jag. I advocate getting defective officials out of their positions of influence. That sends a message too. Unfortunately, our legislators are not promptly responsive to public pressure (legislators having the power to impeach judges), and are by nature averse to controversy (legislators are -- always trying to pass the buck and have it both ways), and the people tolerate it.
An amendment might get the judges out of the marriage business (I think not, because creating civil unions does not fully protect marriage), but defective judges can bring society down in other avenues. Are we going to keep chasing them around with Constitutional amendments? Or kick them the hell off the bench?
In a way, I see advocating the amendment as a way to dilute energy that would be better spent toward a more durable solution. But again, that's just me. Not that I'm against a FMA, just that settling for a FMA seems to accept defective judges in principle, as long as they don't attach "one-man-one-woman" to the label "marriage."