"At its gravest level, the amendment would make a significant incursion into federalism and state's rights, taking the Constitution into areas where it was never meant to be, family law and morality. At worst, the amendment trivializes the Constitution by involving that great document in someone's choice of life partner."
The amendment would NOT make a significant incursion into federalism and state's rights. The amendment would affirm the base and intent of our Constitution. It is a shame that something as fundamental as the marriage between one man and one woman would have to be formally stated. But it must. I strongly support the Constitutional amendment that affirms that marriage is intended to be between a man and a woman.
The state's rights incursion is nothing but an attempt to muddy the water by those legislators funded by the powerful and rich gay and lesbian lobby, IMHO.
The states' rights response is just political cover for the politicians who don't want to be on the record against same sex marriage and for a constitutional amendment defining marriage. It is just another way to kick the can down the road and be on both sides of the issue.