[Mr. Lucky]

Sorry, I don’t subscribe to the notion that the central government should be telling sovereign states how to conduct their business. If Massachusetts or Iowa want to become magnets for sodomites, that's their business (and as a resident of Indiana, I say more power to them).

[G8 Diplomat]

If Massachusetts or Iowa want to become magnets for sodomites, that's their business

When marriage is under attack I see no problem with an amendment interfering to put an end to that attack. Our primary allegiance should be to morality, not the Constitution.

Some of us aren't willing to let society fall apart more than it has already via gay marriage just for the sake of the "states rights" crowds. If you won't do something about it, we will.

[CheyennePress]

>>> If Massachusetts or Iowa want to become magnets for sodomites, that’s their business (and as a resident of Indiana, I say more power to them).<<<

Until a US federal court judge strikes down that pretty little DOMA act Indiana (and every other state) passed. Then it doesn’t really matter what the people of Indiana think, does it?

[G8 Diplomat]

I don’t subscribe to the notion that the central government should be telling sovereign states how to conduct their business

Generally it shouldn't. But if that business the states are meddling in is immoral, the central government ought to have the right to tell them to knock it off via an amendment. Morality first, Constitution second.