[LearsFool]

And, you base this on what particular section of the Constitution?

If the founders of this nation had ever, in their most pessimistic nightmares, anticipated we would be arguing over what marriage is - let alone which one of us gets to decide what marriage is! - I doubt they'd have bothered to fight and die for our freedom, let alone formulate and debate a Constitution to bequeath to us.

I think they understood, because they studied the history of mankind, that when a nation devolves into such depravity and insanity, no constitution can save it. But we, in our blind obstinance, are like the captain of the Titanic shouting defiantly, with his last drowning breath, "But she's unsinkable!"

If we've come to this, if we think marriage can be put to a vote or left to a judge or legislature, the Constitution is a gun with a clogged barrel: It can't save us, and relying on it to do so is both ignorant and dangerous.

[OldDeckHand]

"If the founders of this nation had ever, in their most pessimistic nightmares, anticipated we would be arguing over what marriage is - let alone which one of us gets to decide what marriage is!"

Marriage existed in 1776. It's not a new concept. The Founders could have elected to federalize marriage, but the decided that it was a administrative task best left to the individual states. They were right.

Like several people on this thread, you are no better than the liberals that wish to federal and regulate any number of activities - activities that are plainly unaddressed in the USC. I don't. I want the imperial federal government as small and unobtrusive as possible. If I don't approve of the "marriages" that my state is recognizing, I'll move to another state, but I damn sure don't want the imperial federal government butting into it.