Why not? Look, There is no danger in us not giving women the vote, why make that a constitutional amendment?
It is to lock down this issue and make the matter settled.
Anyone who is against gay marriage should have no problem with this concept, at all.
OTOH, "Since there is effectively no danger to traditional marriage," ... this is obviously a false statement, given that more than one state has had judges imposing it on their state, and interstate issues have *already* appeared in state and Federal courts cases.
The real opposition to FMA are from those who wouldnt mind at all if gay marriage snuck in the back door somehow.
Therein lies the false brass ring. I am against same sex marriage, I am not gay or lesbian, so what the hey, why not. Ain't gonna hurt me any.
Well in fact, I am against same sex marriage, but even more I will challenge any illegitimate attempt to impose federal power on that of the individual states. Almost every supporter on these boards has for years screamed loudly at the growing power of the federal government, claiming a strong central government is the basis of liberal thought. But here in this issue, where it is easy to despise homosexuality itself, why not? Why should a state be permitted to legalize something I disagree with so vehemently? That's fair weather conservatism at its best.
The real opposition to FMA are from those who wouldnt mind at all if gay marriage snuck in the back door somehow.
I oppose the FMA, yet I will oppose same sex marriages in my state if the issue comes up. But Massachusetts and every other state are part of a constitutional Republic, not a democracy and certainly not a theocracy. As such each of those states has the right to do what it will with respect to same sex marriage.
Yes, many who are opposed to FMA are liberals and those with a homosexual agenda. There are however, many conservatives who support our republican form of government far more than any emotional and personal biases.