[ishmac]

States should have the final say in something like this...

In a former and better time I would have agreed. Unfortunately, the classic "states' rights" position has been overtaken by events. Here in Michigan, where I live, we'll probably pass a defense of marriage law this fall. But what good is it if we're eventually strong-armed into accepting a law made in Boston, Massachussetts? It's not just that 4 unelected judges in Massechussetts can make the law for its own citizens; they can make the law for the citizens of, say, southwestern Michigan.

For those who think amending the constitution is extreme, it is--but I would argue that the crisis forced on us by the gay gestapo is the kind of situation that merits extreme action. Of course, the easiest expedient is to restrict federal courts with a Senate vote. That, however, is only a stopgap measure. The gay marriage train needs to be derailed now.

[HenryLeeII]

Actually, I don't disagree with your position. I think its outrageous that unelected judges in MA can make a law for that state, and even worse if its forced to stand throughout the whole country. That's why I'm not opposed to a Defense of Marriage amendment; I wouldn't necessarily like it in a purist's sense, but reality dictates why its being discussed. What we need to do, but it won't happen, is to impeach the judges and make sure others like them don't get appointed to the bench. As long as there are idiots like Dem'Rats we'll have activist judges!

The point of my earlier reply is that both V.P. and Mrs. Cheney have a valid point.