[Luis Gonzalez]

Do you have a reading impairment?

My exact argument is that a Constitutional Amendment does not set marriage in stone because it would be reversible, just like the 18th was reversed, by a liberal Congress wishing to elevate the ability of same-sex couples to marry to the level of a constitutional right.

[Snuffington]

My exact argument is that a Constitutional Amendment does not set marriage in stone because it would be reversible, just like the 18th was reversed, by a liberal Congress wishing to elevate the ability of same-sex couples to marry to the level of a constitutional right.

That is hardly your exact argument. Your argument previously was that marriage should be left for each state to define for itself, as if 50 different versions of something called "marriage" would have no special impact of American society.

As a caveat you challenged that an amendment, (as proposed by those who do not share your opinion) might be reversed.

Um... yes. It might. Not really much of a point in your favor when it comes to the issue in debate though.

[longtermmemmory]

perhaps BUT it will be an act of ELECTED senate/house and 3/4 of the legislatures. It will not be six people in black dresses.