I'm not a "gambling proponent", I'm an "original intent" proponent. I've never set foot in a casino or placed and online bet in my life. I just happen to agree with Clarence Thomas on the subject of the New Deal Commerce Clause and the "substantial effects" doctrine.
I realize that while Congress has abused the commerce clause many times since the 1930s, that doesn't mean that it is abusing the clause again with this piece of legislation.
In fact, the federal government has legitimate reasons for banning internet gambling besides its interest in regulating interstate commerce. The biggest reason would that it would be very easy for internet gaming sites to defraud their customers by using software that would only allow the house to win. A particular customer could gamble repeatedly at a website, always lose, and never realize that no one else ever wins either. And it would be very hard for law enforcement to police these sites, much harder than it would be for them to oversee gambline establishments that exist physically within their jurisdictions.