[ChicagoGuy]

"An amendment is the only way to restore Constitutional balance of powers. " This amendment goes way beyond restoring any balance of powers. It takes the definition of marriage, which has always been in the hands of the states, and forever pulls it into the federal realm. It specifically says how marriage will be defined in all states, and it specifically says how all federal AND STATE laws will be interpreted. This is a huge encroachment on the rights of the states, and creates a tremendous imbalance in favor of the federal government over the states.

[Snuffington]

This amendment goes way beyond restoring any balance of powers. It takes the definition of marriage, which has always been in the hands of the states, and forever pulls it into the federal realm. It specifically says how marriage will be defined in all states, and it specifically says how all federal AND STATE laws will be interpreted. This is a huge encroachment on the rights of the states, and creates a tremendous imbalance in favor of the federal government over the states.

Name me a single state where a majority would disagree with the wording of this amendment?

Seriously, this isn't much of an issue for federalism because the entire idea of marriage wasn't considered something in need of a legislative definition, any more than gravity, until very recently. There is not now, and never has been, a state that considered marriage to be something different than defined above, with the possible exception of Utah, who would have included polygamy.

Funny thing about Utah. In order to enter the union they had to renounce legalized polygamy. In which case, how can one argue that this sort of thing has been enshrined as a state issue until now?

[Antoninus]

This amendment goes way beyond restoring any balance of powers. It takes the definition of marriage, which has always been in the hands of the states, and forever pulls it into the federal realm. It specifically says how marriage will be defined in all states, and it specifically says how all federal AND STATE laws will be interpreted. This is a huge encroachment on the rights of the states, and creates a tremendous imbalance in favor of the federal government over the states.

Please. The states have never had to define what "marriage" is until very recently either. The whole notion that we need to do so is ridiculous and this outrageous situation must be laid at the feet of the homo-promo lobby where it belongs.

That said, I favor putting this Amendment in writing in the highest possible jurisdiction we have available to us in this nation and on this earth--the U.S. Constitution. I'm tired of screwing around with this phony homo cr@p.

[The Iguana]

"An amendment is the only way to restore Constitutional balance of powers. " This amendment goes way beyond restoring any balance of powers. It takes the definition of marriage, which has always been in the hands of the states, and forever pulls it into the federal realm. It specifically says how marriage will be defined in all states, and it specifically says how all federal AND STATE laws will be interpreted. This is a huge encroachment on the rights of the states, and creates a tremendous imbalance in favor of the federal government over the states.

Would you, then, favor a Constitutional Amendment that suspends the Full Faith and Credit clause in regards to marriage?

So that if Massachusetts legalizes gay marriage, Utah would notbe bound to recognize it, as it would be now as the Constutition is written?