[JSDude1]

Well, MNLibertarian (Can I call you that it's much shorter than your true handle? ;)), the reason why conservatives such as myself support measures like the FMA, and don't see it as extreme is because the courts (Such as in Massachusetts or NJ) have, or are on the road to Federalize "force upon the states" such issues as "gay marriage"-which they will somehow..find a 'right' to in the US federal Constitution. It is the courts who are granting gays "special rights" through marriage/unions that conservatives oppose, none of these decisions have been done ''voluntarily'' throuhg the legislature, (or even popular mandate) ala a State Constiutional Amend/Referendum.

Contrarily, homosexuals should be respected, but their behavior NOT SO MUCH, and neither does the federal government have any purpose in granting them "special rights" ala marriage/unions through courts no less..

(I am of the opionion that when the issue of "gay marriage" comes before the courts:That they just say "hey we don't have any authority to rule on if gays have any extra "right" to marry someone of the same sexual orientation or not, because it is not specifically granted in any STATE Constituion, less the FEDERAL Const. !!

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

Personally, I think marriage should not be any business of the state. It's a religious institution and the government should stay out of it completely. I definitely disagree with the stunt the NJ Supreme Court pulled by basically telling the Legislature they had to make a law. If there must be a law regarding marriage, then I think referendum is probably the way to go. I also disagree with federalizing the issue by forcing states NOT to allow same-sex marriages. Arizona, for example, opted not to pass a marriage amendment, so if some state were to pass a same-sex marriage law (as may happen in Massachusetts), then they should have the right to maintain that law.