call it laziness, but I am hereby officially plagiarizing myself to comment on your Marriage Ammendment position, from another post on this site:
"I would ask that our fellow proponents of less government, especially the 'paleo conservatives', consider the notion that perhaps it is time to get government OUT of the institution of marriage entirely. Religious entities (ie churches)could and would still marry people, according to their beliefs, and the two people could and would still enter into a legally recognized contract re: property etc. but the government (whether State or Federal) would have no say over what is "sanctified". I mean, regardless of what a given majority wishes at any given period in history, do we really want to equate the blessing of God with the blessing of the state? Blasphemy and bad policy are a heady mix for some. Remember: the separation of church and state is a good idea from BOTH angles... I don't want government involved in my worship anymore than I want YOUR (generically) religious beliefs influencing MY government."
I realize this is a fringey idea, but constantly ammending our Constitution every time someone's idea of freedom clashes with your own is worse than bad policy; it's a recipe for disaster and the ultimate failure of this political experiment in tolerance and freedom that we call the United States of America.
Government in marriage is more than just adults living together. Marriage law, and by conection divorce law, has always been about children and providing for inheritance and support for the family.
The private system of marriage is completly inadequate to deal with property and inheritance rights. Governemnt came IN to recording marriages because the private system is too suseptible to fraud. Look at california's paternity fraud problem and multiply that a thousand fold with no minimum recording.