[ChicagoGuy]

My point here is that there are so many 'fair weather federalists'. They say they want a smaller, weaker federal government, but then when a small, weak federal government doesn't give them the exact result they want on every issue, they suddenly want a big, strong federal government to impose their desired result upon everyone else.

"I'm not upset that my state might be constrained from deciding to call "cats" "dogs" either. Sure it's more limiting in a purely theoretical way." Just because you don't care if your state is constrained on this issue doesn't mean that the residents of other states don't care. If for some reason the people of Vermont or Hawaii decide that same-sex marriage is OK in their state, why should the residents of other states get to say no? The glory of having 50 different states is that if you prefer the laws of another state, you can move there. But if the federal government gets involved in imposing the will of the other states onto each individual state, we've eliminated one of the benefits of our system.

[Snuffington]

Just because you don't care if your state is constrained on this issue doesn't mean that the residents of other states don't care. If for some reason the people of Vermont or Hawaii decide that same-sex marriage is OK in their state, why should the residents of other states get to say no?

Do the states get a say in whether up is down? Of course not. Some things are simply reality, and are not within the purview of sane legislation, though I realize the power-mad legislators of our era claim god-like ability to define reality itself.

You propose letting the definition of marriage itself as something to be thrown open to variable legislation, yet you fail to indicate a single state which would not advocate the language of the marriage amendment you seem to oppose.

At some point you must recognize you oppose popular government in practice, unless you can cite an actual state which is constrained by this legislative act. The people of all 50 states call for action. It is not in any one of their interests to stand in the way in behest of a theoretical 51st.

The "gay marriage" movement thus far had avoided any legislative plebiscite. Either this is an issue upon which the polular will matters, or it is an issue of inherent rights. Neither of these is addressed by appealing to a federalist priciple - particularly in a case in which all 50 states are in popular agreement.

Our Constitution allows the nation to legislate via amendment when there is broad consensus among the states. Do you reject this in principle? Or do you have some special knowledge about this specific issue which calls you to object on that basis instead?