IMHO, this is about preservation of our NATION... if we want to continue to recieve favor from God, our LAWS must be consistent with His divine order.... we are not "regulating" personal behavior.. people are still free to do whatever they want.. under this consitutional ammendement they just can't call what they do marriage... pretty simple IMHO.
David
I favor limited government at all levels, too. I question your premise, though, that a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman would give more power to government. On the contrary, I think it would restrict government from interfering with a private (and sacred) institution. With such an Amendment in place, legislators could not create laws expanding the definition of marriage so as to create new "rights" and entitlements, nor could judges find such "rights" lurking in the shadows of emanations of penumbras of state constitutions, and issue mandates in lieu of legislative action.
Marriage is what it has always been, the union of a man and a woman, and the nature of reality ought not be subject to the whims of a politically-powerful interest group with a large megaphone.
I will also note that a Marriage Amendment would not preclude other forms of association, including "civil unions" from being created at the state level. The rights and responsibilities conveyed by such unions would, as currently, be a matter of state statute in compliance with Federal law. In other words, if Massachusetts wants to allow two men to enter into a civil union - great. But Florida, or any other state would not be compelled to do the same.
Regulate marriage?! The FMA does not regulate marriage. It defines marriage. Since when does defining a term constitute regulation? It prevents same-sex marriage from being forced on states that don't want to recognize it. Where to you get 'regulate' out of that? Let's force same-sex marriage on states that don't want it, but that's not 'regulation'?!