[No.6]

“In fact, the case example of Prohibition leads me to conclude that the opposite happens. The effort was moral, well-intentioned, and resulted in drunkenness galore, the rise of organized crime, and along the way a hefty expansion in Federal power in the process of fighting said organized crime.”

If a Constitutional amendment to define marriage would have such negative effects, explain why existing state laws defining marriage have not had such effects over the course of all American history to date.

Why do local laws about alcohol (e.g., 'dry' counties) not cause organized crime, but national Prohibition did? You can speculate, but I think it's because when it's local each law can suit each area's preference as expressed by its voters.

Besides, it's only one step from one-size-fits-all national edicts to one-size-fits-all world edicts. The same argument you make in the national vs. state context are made by globalists in the global vs. national context.

In my opinion, when in doubt, err towards making government smaller and more local, never larger and more remote -- whatever the issue.

[AFA-Michigan]

“In my opinion, when in doubt, err towards making government smaller and more local, never larger and more remote — whatever the issue.”

I agree with this statement re: most issues.

However, I am not “in doubt” that protecting life and marriage are more important than the concept of “federalism.”