What a joke. You interested in a conversation wiht me...or yourself?
And furthermore, not just tell me there are only 5 ways to answer, but that all five are without reason? You're funny, is this the way you have most of your "critical thought" conversations.....ask the question, supply the only 5 wrong answers. Sorry, the circus games don't impress me.I can only see five ways that you could answer such a question. Not a single one is consistent with reason.
And what I would base my answer on is what I linked to. Courts in some states and even in some cases, city Mayors...as in SF...some of this occurs in lower court rulings, or some state supreme court finds same sex marriage opposition unconstitutional and thus legalizes it in that state...or requires the legislature to take action. Some states may indeed legalize same sex marrriage and thus those same sex couples have every right to expect their marriages to be recognized by other states. A federal amendment excluding other states from recognizing such marriages is what I'd support and for obvious reasons. To define marriage as a society...by our society...rather than the executive branch or judicial branch of our government, this decision would be decided once and for all by a legislative endeavor.
So my two reasons....I reckon I'll call these 6 and 7 as your limited knowledge on this subject reigned you in at 5.
6). To make sure this issue is decided upon by a legislative or referendum endeavor thus making sure marriage is defined by We the People.
7) To make sure that should one state legalize same sex marriage, there is no reason to expect other states to recognize such marriages. Right there in our Constitution(as the federal DOMA says right now), would be language quite specific concerning marriage in these United States. No reason for lawsuits, no arguments, no debates, no fuss, no worries. It would cone this issue down to a state by state issue and where I think it belongs.
Now...a very important personal note here. I don't necessarily support a federal amendment. However, in reaction to states that are legalizing marriage expecting those marriages are recognized elsewhere. It's the EXACT REASON why the current and standing DOMA was voted on and approved so overwhelmingly, I find it odd you list of 5 didn't include my 6 and 7 as those two reasons ARE why existing law is on the books.
These aren't even good guesses.1. An appeal to tradition fallacy. (marriage has always been between a man and a woman)
2. Ignoring the countries that have legalized same sex marriage and making a fallacious argument that it would be somehow harmful to this country.
3. An appeal to the majority fallacy. (most people don't agree with same sex marriage)
4. A slippery slope fallacy. (if we allow same sex marriage then we have to allow polygamy)
5. Religious condemnation. (its a sin)
I just proved you wrong. And the rationale is the same as the rationale for the current DOMA, here, allow me to quote that law signed by Bill Clinton and voted on by som many in your current Congress such as Harry Reid and Execs running your government that you voted in like Joe Biden.Please prove me wrong and provide some rational that isn't listed above for why a federal amendment banning same sex marriage would be a good idea.
Isn't that easy to read. OBVIOUSLY, a federal amendment would protect this law, only a matter of time before some court gets involved, an amendment would solidify and code the DOMA. And it protects other states from recognizing those states that do legalize same sex marriage.1)No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2)The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.
Here is where all the selective outrage shows. NEVER...will Bill Clinton ever be called the names and accused of discrimination or hate of gays or anything close to it. Neither will ANY of the Dem Senators or House members who voted against same sex marriage. It's all quite transparent, this pretend outrage from the gay community concerning this marriage issue, it's a political issue. NOBODY can marry within gender in this nation and have it recognized, gay or straight, bi or tri, it doesn't matter.The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.
I found the text from Wiki, their quote here gives the reason why so easily...and doesn't use one of your 5 "only" reasons that are all wrong.
And that is why in some cases, I can see a federal amendment making sense. If the state's rights to define marriage for themselves is challenged, a federal amendment reinforces We the People's decision here to define our own institutions, any court properly interpreting would clearly see this and dismiss any irrepsonsible and kneejerk legal action from gay communities. They'd just be told sorry, it is Constitutional. Now...you can overturn if you'd like, the amendment process is crystal clear.At the time of passage, it was expected that Hawaii (and possibly other states) would soon legalize same-sex marriage, whether by legislation or judicial interpretation of either the state or federal constitution. Opponents of such recognition feared (and many proponents hoped) that the other states would then be required to recognize such marriages under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution.