To those against this amendment:
1. No, the Constitution is not limited to government "behavior". The 13th amendment (prohibition of slavery) has nothing to do with government behavior, other than it authorizes Congress to enforce it.
2. A federal marriage law would not withstand a serious challenge, based on Article IV, Section 2 (The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States). Thus an amendment is necessary.
3. Homosexual "marriage" is simply an assault on religion. Under the terms of a "civil union", homosexuals are entitled to all the rights that heterosexual couples enjoy. In this case, it is indeed the title of "Marriage" that is important. No one is asking to limit the rights of homosexuals or whatever they choose to do with each other. It is the protection of religion that is important here.
4. Bush is not playing political games. This is the fulfillment of a campaign promise. If you think it is a game, please tell me when you think it would be appropriate to pursue this promise?
5. The preamble of the Constitution notes that one role of our government is to "...insure domestic Tranquility...". Some of those on this thread would like to ignore the role of the family unit in promoting domestic tranquility. Please note that this role of the government comes before "provide for the common defence"
Thanks for your points. Excellent. Let me add one more.
It is vitally important to also make this clear:
6. This Amendment doesnt "ban gay marriage" as the media would have it. The Amendment *preserves* the current and long-standing definition of marriage from adulteration through inclusion of gay unions, which are manifestly not 'marriage'. This definition of marriage has been in western law for millenia, encoded in Justinian's Laws for example.