Originally posted by Dan Nixon:


If one state approves gay marriage and the couple moves to a state without GM then the state is forced to either reciprocate (which is not fair to the citizens of that state) or refuse (which is not fair to the couple). So this amendment is REALLY about protecting states rights every bit as much as it is critisized for being AGAINST states rights.



So it would be more fair to gay people to completely ban them from getting married on US soil? How would a constitutional amendment give states more rights when it completely usurps their power to decide this issue for themselves?

Why not let the states decide (a) whether they want to permit gays to marry within their borders and (b) whether they want to recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere?
Wouldn't this be most fair for gay people?

I thought the republicans were the party in favor of states rights and decreasing the power of the national government?. A constitutional amendment seems like a major national power-grab to me.