Republicans who want to restrict gay marriage are doing so the right way, by promoting an amendment to the constitution.
Those on who "interpret" our "living Constitution" to make it mean something it never meant are the same leftists who "interpret" the Second Amendemnt as not applying to individuals. They are engaged in a war against the Constitution and and are enemies of the Republic.
And when the SCOTUS interpreted the Constitution to pretend that this country was a "Christian Nation," it was wrong to engage in such judicial activism.
Was it amended to end segregation?
While I agree the amendment process is the way to resolve the issue, I would dis-agree that the amendment be worded in the negative.
It should be worded in the positive, after the style of the 14th Amendment. Only in this way will the homosexual community have no grounds for complaint when the proposed amendment fails to pass.
I say let the homosexual community create a name other than the word 'marriage' to define their sexual contracts the same way congress created a new word to categorize and define the civil rights of former slaves and non-citizens.
Congress knew it couldn't re-define the word, 'Citizen,' so it selected a new, but sound-alike word,'citizen' as a substitute word in the 14th Amendment.
The same logic and principle should apply to homosexuals who believe they are entitled to the protection of the Civil Rights Act. Let them come up with their own word, and leave the pre-defined word, 'marriage' pure and un-defiled.
I propose the words, 'smerge,' 'smerged,' and 'smerriage' as examples.
Yes, I'm serious.