[tortoise]

This does not belong in the Constitution. It sets a very, very bad precedent when one starts legislating through Constitutional Amendment. Let the States do it if they want, but the Federal government has no business or stake in this (at least not by any sane understanding of the intended structure of our government).

Republicans deserve to get beaten with the "stupid stick" if they try and do this. The majority does not support gay marriage, which is precisely why an amendment is unnecessary.

[JCEccles]

It sets a very, very bad precedent when one starts legislating through Constitutional Amendment.

Marriage, like slavery, is too important to leave to the states.

And this isn't even remotely akin to legislating by constitution. What an absurd and rationally impoverished thing to say! The amendment would RESTRICT the power of government, not expand it. Restricting and limiting the power of government is an eminently proper application of a constitution.

How can you people keep missing this obvious point? I believe it must be because you're social liberals and the idea of prohibiting gay marriage and other cockeyed liberal social experiments offends you. It actually excites you to have small cabals of liberal judges rewrite the traditions of society to fit the morally bankrupt liberal model and force everybody else to abide by it.

[Aetius]

Okay, but assuming you have not been living under a rock, you are aware that our imperial Supreme Court has a penchant for usurping power from the people, the states, and its fellow two inferior federal branches, right?

What you say is technically correct, but surely you don't think that the behavior of our courts and their judge-kings is in line with the intended structure of our govt, do you?

Now, if you think its a cheap 'trick' because it has no chance of passing, then fine, but to argue that some form of Amendment won't eventually be necessary is to ignore the past 50+ yrs of judicial activism. The only other way would be if the other branches simply ignored the SCOTUS imposition of gay marriage/civil unions when it comes, but I don't think there is any chance at all of that.

Your line that an Amendment is not necessary because the public opposes gay marriage is bizarre. Its puzzling because, again, we live with activist courts where public opinion only matters when the justices use it to bolster whatever leftwing decision they are handing down. Otherwise, it is completely meaningless...as it will be once marriage finally reaches the Sup Court. Do you really think that Souter, Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kennedy will take into account the twenty or so overwhelming popular statewide rejections of gay marriage?

I don't.