My point was that marriage should not become a federal issue for no good reason. Voters in each state currently define marriage, do they not? Why should it be any different?
Um, no. Judges want to REDEFINE marriage from what it has been for millennia to something appealing to perverts.
Because marriage has always been between a man and a woman, with a few forays into polygamy. There has never been, in the history of the world, a stable civilization that was based on anything else.
Homosexual activists want to radically change the meaning of family and marriage. The burden is on you to prove that this is a good thing. Read post #38 and refute it with citations, since you like them very much and consider them necessary.
It is a federal issue already. Marriages performed in Alabama are recognized in Florida.
I would support a constitutional amendment that prevents a state from forcing its definition of marriage on another state.
If Utah wants polygamy, that's Utah's problem.
If Massachusetts wants gay marriage, that's Massachusetts' problem.
Voters in each state currently define marriage, do they not? Why should it be any different?
If the status quo remains, everybody will be happy.
The reason we are talking about a constitutional amendment is because the status quo will be challenged in federal court shortly, and many legal experts expect DOMA to be found unconstitutional.
Then who decides who is "Married" vs. "Single" for:
1. Federal tax filing?
2. Federal pension survivorship benefits?
3. Social Security survivorship benefits?
4. Military spousal benefits/entitlements?
(These are just a few that come to mind.