Terrance is critical of Barr, pointing out that “One size does fit all for heterosexuals. Full faith and credit assures that they’re just as married in Massachusetts as they are in Mississippi.”

Me, I do have to wonder why each state has to make its own decision when it comes to gays. Why is marriage a state issue for gays and not for heterosexuals?

I also agree that it should be a state issue, I'm just saying there is no legal arguement for the outlaw of gay marriage that does not also work just as well for straight ones. In the unlikely event that a bunch of payback minded gay lawmakers ever come to power, it could get ugly.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/846/religion-and-pr...

This amendment is nonsense but your statement applies even better to another recent thread on this site that describes some things the Republicans “should” consider. (Banning abortion across state lines and such — don't know if this was the product of an all-night sleepless session with or without heavy drinking.)

He's done no such thing legally, just politically (the group to whom he would appeal is over-hyped by the Left but in fact is relatively and even absolutely small).

There in fact is no such “right” in the Constitution. That means (despite “living, breathing” dishonest “constitutional law” [sic] activists) it's something reserved to the states and localities to legislate as they see fit. To make it a constitutional and a federal issue (if the federal government is to be involved, such as for purposes of uniformity) requires a constitutional amendment. (The same in fact is true for other things like abortion, though dishonest activists will clutch at activist rulings with all the strength they can impart to their claws not to lose federal judicial and maybe someday legislative intrusion into the issue of abortion.)

Additional note: the “equal protection” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has fallen out of favor as the perversely-”interpreted” political weapon of choice of the activist crowd. And no, the Ninth Amendment does not create any federal “rights” out of thin air, not to marriage, not to health care, not to anything else. (It indicates that the rights enjoyed by Americans — liberties, not claims or demands on others — were not to be construed to consist only of those found in the new Constitution. Not only does Washington *** NOT *** have general, unlimited powers — it only has those powers granted to it; the citizens do *** NOT *** only have a specific, limited set of powers “granted” to them. Even though some lefties would want it that way toward nearly everything other than matters of personal [mis]conduct.)

Same for a flag-burning amendment. That is going too far (and is idolatry).

Lol, way to paint yourself into a corner. Gay marriage is just as protected or not by the Constitution as straight marriage. There is no wording differentiating between the two. If you legal justify banning gay marriage, you have also legally justified banning straight ones. Now whose attacking the institution of marriage?

P.S. – I mentioned the Equal Rights Ammendment earlier when I meant the 14th, its been edited out.