>>Which would be better: to have a Constitutional amendment that gets ratified, and which prevents state judges from pushing homosexual ‘marriages’ over the objections of the legislatures and prevents states from imposing such ‘marriages’ on other state<<
And the moment someone who is married in Vermont has their marriage annulled in Wyoming? And sues in a federal court?
Sorry, Ockam’s legal razor applies here. The simplest amendment and the most sound legal principles involve simply defining marriage between one man and one woman. No loopholes. No room for doubt. Very simple.
And we only need 3/4ths of the States to agree ! Forget about, CA, IL, NJ, NY etc. You are 1000000% right on !!
“Sorry, Ockam’s legal razor applies here. The simplest amendment and the most sound legal principles involve simply defining marriage between one man and one woman. No loopholes. No room for doubt. Very simple.”
Well, what if someone says that in their relationship they ARE the woman? Would we have to add the word anatomical? And if they had a sex change, so they looked like a woman anatomically but were still 100% a man genetically, how would that play out? The amendment would have to be a bit more specific than all that. And personally, I believe our Constitution is the great document it is because it limits the powers of the government, not the powers of the people... An amendment of this sort would take the first steps towards a document that LIMITS the rights of the people. I agree with Fred - let the states handle this. It can do nothing but long term harm.