I suppose if one considers the states as territories, rather than sovereign entities, one has no problem with Congress stampimg their will on the states. Rasing the issue of marriage to a constitutional issue concerns me, since I do not believe this is an issue the federal government should have jurisdiction over. However, there is an activist Supreme Court, who finds whatever justidication they wish for any act, to be considered. Would such a court respect the decisions of states' to ban same-sex marriages?
We should define what marriage is by law (The Supreme in Reynolds Vs USA - the Mormon case - has already given Congress the power to define marriage) then grant licenses for marriage but let the religious institution do the marrying.
The Supreme Court decision mentioned above allows congress to regulate religion in such a way.
When the state allowed traffic clerks to marry people it got into the religion business and set up the secualr state as a religon.
No one has ever viewed marriage in such a way. When Bush talks about constitutional ammendment for marriage he is talking about civil marriage. Marriage should never be performed by the state it should only regulate it.
End all civil marriages. The mayor or local dog catcher should have no ability to join anyone in matrimony-period!