[retarmy]

I do not believe that it should be brought up again, as this is not a national issue, but a local issue.

This is another example of the federal government trying to usurp the rights of the individual states. I live in Florida, which has political clout, but if I lived in Delaware, or Rhode Island, or another state that has no large representative delegation in Congress, I would not like a group of other states mandating what my state should do, which is what would happen if Congress passes a law and it is upheld by the Supreme Court.

Would you want California dictating how farmers in your states should grow their crops, or curb bovine emissions? It is the same thing.

[mewzilla]

I do not believe that it should be brought up again, as this is not a national issue, but a local issue.

Not according to the full faith and credit clause.

[jwalsh07]

Constitutional amendments are by definition constitutional. Constitutional amendments require super majorities to enact. That means super majorities of the states. Federalism is at risk not from a constitutional amendment but from federal courts.

At any rate, there are not currently enough votes in the Senate and perhaps there never will be for such an amendment but there is clearly a super majority for not permitting the elite to change the meaning of the word marriage.

But then again there are super majorities for securing the southern border and many of the elites, and I include President Bushe here, don't give two craps about that either.

[B Knotts]

You're way off.

This amendment, more than anything, is a reiteration of religious freedom, which is under attack by anti-Christians. Same-sex "marriage" is one of the ways they are trying to undermine religious freedom.

It must be passed and ratified ASAP.

[StonyBurk]

Congress acted in 1861 to define marriage prior to Utah being accepted as equal. The Us supreme Court in a series of decisions 1878 Reynolds --1890 Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter day Saints v. the Unite dStates upheld that Congresisonal definition of marriage. Yet to day we insit it is just a local issue. Perhaps - It matters NOT what Congress or th eCOurts declare is legal IF human law violates the Law of nature dictated by God Himself, or the
positive Revealed Laws found in Scripture Human law is ill made. I will NOT recognize as valid any same sex/homosexual marriage NOR recognize as equal to marriage any dilution of the trademark institution.

[DungeonMaster]

I do not believe that it should be brought up again, as this is not a national issue, but a local issue.

Lets see, was Sodom a nation or a local?

[little jeremiah]

Amazing. You compare how farmers grow some crops to the foundation of human civilization.

[fwdude]

Did you not actually read the article? It blew out of the water every argument you just parroted.

[RobbyS]

Before an amendment could become part of the constitution, it would have to be approved by four-fifths of the states. Hardly an invasion of "states rights." What would be, as others have pointed out, is that the gays are trying to use the full faith and credit clause to compel the states to accept gay marriage whether they like it or not. Right now this is more likely than the marriage amendment.

[melancton]

I do not believe that it should be brought up again, as this is not a national issue, but a local issue.

Exactly. The idea of "protecting" marriage with at the federal level is nothing more than an election year ploy. If it wasn't for government sticking its nose into marriage in the first place, this wouldn't even be an issue.