[zarf]

Good. No "discrimination" should be enshrined in the Constitution.

Let the states ban it individually and leave it alone on a national level.

[tfecw]

"Let the states ban it individually and leave it alone on a national level"

Agreed, this was a band-aid fix for activist judges. Instead of fixing the problem all it'd do is turn the constitution into a dictionary.

[MarineBrat]

Good. No "discrimination" should be enshrined in the Constitution.

How do you come to the conclusion that recognizing what is already obvious is discrimination?

[maica]

Let the states ban it individually and leave it alone on a national level.

######

What was your opinion of the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v Texas? I did not hear people saying that what was law in Texas should stay (or be overturned) in Texas. That was the Supreme Court ruling that has taken the issue of so-called same sex marriage away from the states' jurisdictions.

[andy58-in-nh]

What is discriminatory about preventing judges, especially Federal judges, from changing the plain meaning of words by fiat? Marriage by its nature is dependent on sexual complementarity. If it is not, then all traditional state marriage laws would, by definition be "discriminatory", and subject to litigation and judicial remedy.

With the volume of "same-sex" marriage litigation currently being pursued by gay groups, the ACLU, and others, I seriously doubt that the states could long resist the federal judiciary if it imposes "same-sex" marriage by decree.

[conservative physics]

outlawing gay marriage is enshrining "discrimination" into the constitution..

it's simply stating that two mentally ill people shouldn't have the ability to dismantle western society to fulfill their sick perverts dementia's.

[davidosborne]

You have missed the ENTIRE point of this debate IMHO.

The COURTS have forced the issue to Federal Level NOT the PEOPLE. WE NEED a U.S. Constitutional ammendment defining marriage as a union of ONE man and ONE woman.. the STATES may choose to create whatever garbage they want "OTHER THAN MARRIAGE".... the problem is that CONGRESS has punted the issue back to the courts for litigation.. Homosexual activist have prevailed today, and now they can continue to push their agenda in the federal courts.... a SAD DAY for America indeed.

David

[Luke21]

Judges won't let them do that. If voters in the states pass laws and restrictions on this abomination, the courts immediately overturn the balloting. Why do you think they were doing it in the first place.

[Alissa]

Where do you get the discrimination point? A gay man can marry a woman and a gay woman can marry a man. There is no discrimination here unless you've bought into the liberal talking points!

[old republic]

Good. No "discrimination" should be enshrined in the Constitution.

Let the states ban it individually and leave it alone on a national level.

---

The problem is that the US Constitution Article IV Sec.1 says:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.

This means that any judge at the Federal level could overturn state laws banning the recognition of gay marriage if they were legally contracted in another state. (The same principle applies to real marriages, which is why you can get married in one state, move to another state, and your new state will continue to recognize your marriage). Something needs to be done to prevent this from happening before the courts force it. At minimum something should be done to prevent the states that don't support this from being forced to recognize it via the the full faith and credit clause.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

No "discrimination" should be enshrined in the Constitution.

It is not discrimination. Any homosexual can marry one person of the opposite sex like anybody else...

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

No "discrimination" should be enshrined in the Constitution.

Ageed! Thank you!