[Snuffington]

A Constitutional Amendment would permanently transfer the right to define marriage to the Congress A.K.A. The Federal Government, and take it from each individual State.

You're arguing both sides of this issue.

Are you saying an amendment is permanent? Or that it could be overturned later? The two are not logically compatible.

There is nothing "permanent" about a Constitutional amendment that a future Constitutional amendment can't reverse. It simply has a higher bar for approval.

[Snuffington]

permanently transfer the right to define marriage

And what is this about "the right to define marriage"?! We're living in the only society that ever found this a problem.

Why are we not clamoring for "the right to define ancestry"? I'd love to be descended from Alexander, Caesar, Napolean, and Patton. Heck, I'd put it on my resume! The right to define ancestry is more useful!

[Luis Gonzalez]

I'll type slowly so that you can understand.

I am saying that by asking Congress to ratify an Amendment defining marriage, we are in fact transfering the power to define marriage henceforth to the Federal government, insofar as they would be the only ones able to change or overturn the Amendment.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Here's a better take.

Once this Amendment is ratified, would a State be able to exercise its Constitutional right to define marriage?

No.

[Luis Gonzalez]

We want to ratify a Constitutional Amendment because we are afraid that a State will exercise their Constitutional rigt to define marriage, and it will not be the definition we want.