[BackInBlack]

Jim, how does that answer help this guy? The question is whether it should be left to states or to the federal government through a constitutional amendment.

My answer, mngran2, is that some states will do as Rhode Island did and others will choose otherwise, and indeed, Rhode Island itself would have decided differently if just one vote had changed. If we want to ensure an America where a marriage is between a man and a woman, the way to do that is through a federal amendment. If we’re content with gay marriage sprouting up in various places and gaining momentum, we can leave it to the states. So the question isn’t what a particular state is deciding at a particular time; the question is what kind of country we want to be.

[mngran2]

Thanks for your response (I’m a gal, by the way, though).

Part of what I’m having a hard time reconciling in my own little brain is that for so long I’ve believed that states’ rights was an important concept and I generally dislike expanding federal power. Now, we’re faced with a situation where some states (ones that I don’t live in and so probably shouldn’t have a say over) are doing something I don’t like. Can I justify to myself advocating expanding federal power in this area? Will that set a bad precedent for other issues?

[Jim Noble]

If we want to ensure an America where a marriage is between a man and a woman, the way to do that is through a federal amendment.

It's not up to America whether or not marriage is "between a man and a woman" - that's what marriage means.

However many people are pretending to be "married", the reality of marriage cannot be changed - not by statute, and not by Constitutional amendment.