####There are four main arguments against the FMA. First, a constitutional amendment is unnecessary because federal and state laws, combined with the present state of the relevant constitutional doctrines, already make court-ordered nationwide same-sex marriage unlikely for the foreseeable future. An amendment banning same-sex marriage is a solution in search of a problem.####
No one can truly know if this is true or not. In all likelihood, gay "marriage" advocates will wait until they've legalized such "marriages" in three or four states (via state judicial fiat), and there's a Democrat majority on Congress (to kill any marriage amendment in committee) before going full speed ahead for a gay "marriage" judicial fiat. But it will come, sooner or later.
####Second, a constitutional amendment defining marriage would be a radical intrusion on the nation's founding commitment to federalism in an area traditionally reserved for state regulation, family law. There has been no showing that federalism has been unworkable in the area of family law.####
These guys must have been living on Jupiter when those court decisions on interracial marriage, sodomy, parental consent for abortions, and many other issues were handed down. The Supreme Court has already breached federalism in the three areas most relevant to gay "marriage". They held that marriage itself is a federal constitutional issue in Loving, they rules that homosexuals are a "protected class" in Romer, and they ruled that homosexual sex is a protected activity in Lawrence.
####Third, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage would be an unprecedented form of amendment, cutting short an ongoing national debate over what privileges and benefits, if any, ought to be conferred on same-sex couples and preventing democratic processes from recognizing more individual rights.####
This shows that these Cato dudes don't have the slightest understanding of the gay agenda, which is all about group privelege and not individual rights. Individual rights get trampled under the gay agenda. Yeah, a constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion in 1972 would've cut short the national debate, too. But the national debate didn't last long, as in 1973 the court shut it down by making abortion-on-demand the law of the land. Do these guys really think gay activists and their allies want these issues debated and decided at the state level? Even as we speak, they're working toward a federal judicial fiat on this issue.
####Fourth, the amendment as proposed is constitutional overkill that reaches well beyond the stated concerns of its proponents, foreclosing not just courts but also state legislatures from recognizing same-sex marriages and perhaps other forms of legal support for same-sex relationships. Whatever one thinks of same-sex marriage as a matter of policy, no person who cares about our Constitution and public policy should support this unnecessary, radical, unprecedented, and overly broad departure from the nation's traditions and history.####
And judicial fiats don't forclose state legislatures from exercising their will? So let's see if I get this right. Gay "marriage" has been rejected throughout American history. Not one single state has ever approved it democratically. Yet, it's opponents of gay "marriage" who are being radical and departing from our traditions by seeking passage of a legitimate constitutional amendment to block an impending unconstitutional judicial fiat?
No wonder liberals always win. They're playing by a completely different set of rules from our side, and they set the terms of debate. Only in the topsy-turvy world of liberalism could opponents of gay "marriage", operating within the confines of the Constitution, and winning popular referenda, be considered radicals, while those trying to use judicial fiats to impose their agenda are "moderates".
####This is just another example of how the perverse among us will try to sell the lie that the cure is worse than the malady in order to ensure the malady spreads to the point where it can't be cured.####
EXACTLY!!!!!
Yeah, that's why nobody for the past thirty-three years has ever raised the issue in political debate.