Marriage is to be protected as an institution, therefore divorces are illegal. Marriage is about procreation, therefore those unable to procreate are not allowed to marry and those who marry but do not procreate have violated the law and must be punished, possibly by stoning.

...which will be about the only chance you'll have of getting legally stoned under the Bush administration.

Ba dum-ching!

sorry, couldn't resist it

Oh you crazy Pinkos!

I agree completely.

I knew second-rate comedy was the key to converting people to the anarcho-leftist cause.

What do you mean second rate? I'm pulling out my best stuff for this thread.

second-rate is my best stuff!

"no state need recognize a marriage not legally registered in that state"

kicks it back down to the states, allowing our 50 little laboratories of democracy to try a variety of different paths and get some experimental evidence on which works best

that's a recipe for disaster if ever I heard one.

What happens when one member of a married couple happens to die whilst visiting a neighbouring state where their marriage is not considered legal?

Which next-of-kin is informed, and is legally entitled to perform the sad responsibilities of the final arrangements? The gay partner (who is legally next of kin in their home state, and is waiting in desperation in the hospital waiting room for news) or the third-cousin twice-removed who emigrated to Australia 19 years ago, who is the official next of kin according to the bigots in the state the hospital's in?

given no next of kin in state, then logically the persons 'friend' in the waiting room would get to make the arrangements
but it's really up to the state in question to make their rules as they see fit
it might also be prudent to avoid states hostile to one's marriage

...which would create "no go" areas for sections of the population in the US - is that the sort of divided and fractured country you want to live in?

It's only a few decades back that you managed to get rid of no-go areas for black people - why introduce the same situation for gays?

In one way Bush is right - this needs to be sorted at a national level so that an individual's basic rights are consisitent in each state as they travel across their own country. Unfortunately Bush has picked the wrong answer, and is just obeying the religious extremists and the bigots that make up his core electoral base.

yes, i live in my state, and have 49 more to choose from
people in favor of gay marriage can either move to a state with acceptable laws, or work to change the laws of their state, and vice versa

doesn't make a nogo area, just means you should get your power of attorney squared away if you're worried about it

The amendment should say:

We believe that marriage is a powerful institution that promotes family values and morality, so we are constitutionally extending the right of marriage to gay people as well, in the best traditions of American liberty and equality before the law.

stop being sensible, intelligent and rational, Arty.

I'm not. It's a stupid non-starter of an idea that's never going to happen. I'm clearly delusional, in fact, if I'm stupid enough to think that anyone would put an amendment like that through Congress.

homosexual would make more sense in the context of the amendment then the nonspecific term 'gay'
even if you could get it passed congress, no way it would get past 3/4 of the states at this juncture

Errhead's right - there's a great tradition of inequality before the law to uphold, and if Congress breaks that tradition, the states can be relied upon to uphold it.

Indeed, that's what the division of power is for. It's the constitution in action.

I'm still waiting for one of the pro amendment people to post in this thread.