Don't worry about your beard when your head's about to be chopped off.
Without a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman, we'll end up with a federal judicial fiat imposing gay "marriage" on the entire country, followed by gay adoption, mandatory gay curricula in the public schools, hate speech laws, more federal controls over private property and private organizations, IRS scrutiny of churches that don't perform gay "marriages", and additional exponential increases in government power.
"Don't worry about your beard when your head's about to be chopped off.
Without a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman, we'll end up with a federal judicial fiat imposing gay "marriage" on the entire country, followed by gay adoption, mandatory gay curricula in the public schools, hate speech laws, more federal controls over private property and private organizations, IRS scrutiny of churches that don't perform gay "marriages", and additional exponential increases in government power."
The problem is that with this constitutional amendment, no state will be free to impose any of those policies. While I don't necessarily think the states should implement any of that stuff, I am a strong believer in the federal system of government. If the people in one state want to implement a certain policy, the people should be free to do so - if you don't like it, work through the legislature to stop it.
I guess my difference with most of the people on this site is that y'all seem to view this as primarily a social/moral issue, while I view it as a size/scope of government issue. I don't believe we should give the federal government any more power than is absolutely necessary, no matter how noble the goal is.