[RaiderNation1]

"No, uniform recognition of the definition of marriage was NOT the requirement. Not having polygamy was the requirement, and no - since it was a condition of statehood, they could not back out and re-legalize it. However, such was NOT a condition, say in New York."

Of course not because in NY it was not an issue. The definition of marriage was not in dispute. The issue of same-sex "marriage" was not even a germ of a thought in ANYONE'S head at the time and had say, Oregon recognized such an oxymoronic institution as SSM, it surely would have been required to scrap it in order to be accepted into the Union. I'm sure you'll agree.

[GrandEagle]

Absolutely!
Let me recap my position. Currently the Federal Government has no authority to regulate what is or is not a marriage in any state that the issue was not addresses as a condition of statehood. (Same as before the civil war with some states admitted as slave states, and some admitted as free states, even though slavery had not yet been outlawed in the Constitution). The proposed amendment would require that all states only allow a marriage between a male and female, which would allow Federal enforcement. "We the people" would have granted the Feds that authority, an authority that they currently do not have.
What they can do, however, is determine what is and is not a marriage with regard to Federal income tax, and any Federal benefits.
Personally, I don't think it wise to use the Constitution is such a fashion. I would be in favor of a law that states that only a male/female marriage is considered a marriage for Federal purposes. It they were really serious about it, such a law could be passes with only a 50% + 1 vote and would likely pass. Outside of that, I would rather leave it to the states.

Cordially,
GE