[BKerr]

I am as against homosexual marriage as any here, but I am against altering our Constitution to place rules on the citizenry. Laws and statutes are for the government to place rules and limits on the people, the Constitution is for us to place rules and limits on the government. What we need is to get judges that will not legislate from the bench and maybe amend the amendment in which the judges use as grounds for “legalizing” homosexual marriage.

[Spiff]

What we need is to get judges that will not legislate from the bench and maybe amend the amendment in which the judges use as grounds for “legalizing” homosexual marriage.

That's the idea of the Federal Marriage Amendment. It seeks to limit activist judges from messing with the definition of marriage. Instead of amending an amendment, there's not problem with adding a new amendment. Same difference.

[tantiboh]

~”I am as against homosexual marriage as any here, but I am against altering our Constitution to place rules on the citizenry.”~

I agree with you. This is why, for example, I would oppose a constitutional amendment banning the burning of the American flag.

However, in the case of the definition of marriage, such an amendment would serve to limit what the government can legally recognize and reward as marriage. The issue can be seen either way.