[papasmurf]

Well, why not get an amendment to ban hunting in Wyoming, or Alabama while you’re at it.

Or an amendment to ban children eating at McDonald's?

You want more Federal government intrusion, I want less. If I must be regulated and legislated and controlled and protected, and, and, and, I’d rather it was by my State, and NOT by a group of people who have no idea of my culture, community, or traditions.

I would have a choice, then, to accept it, or to move to a different State. The Federal option leaves us no choice and no recourse.

[G8 Diplomat]

Well, why not get an amendment to ban hunting in Wyoming, or Alabama while you’re at it. Or an amendment to ban children eating at McDonald's?

Because those are not things that need to be banned, unlike gay marriage. If the states won't ban it, the feds should come in and MAKE them ban it. This isn't federal govt intrusion, it's simply a protection of morals done by the feds cuz the states couldn't do it themselves.

[CheyennePress]

Drawing comparisons between hunting (& McDonald’s???) and traditional marriage is just clutching straws.

Come on, man. You can do better than that.

I don’t see your point at all. We already have a Federal Defense of Marriage Act. All a Constitutional amendment does is codify that existing law in a form that a radical federal judge can’t overturn. There’s no regulating or banning whatsoever in the process.

Opposing this amendment on federalist grounds is just dumb.