Now, I am going to say right up front that I usually avoid throwing myself wholesale into any topic that involves gay issues in the slightest, because (as you can easily see just perusing the front page), they tend to polarize people and draw out a great deal of hostility. However I think this can be focused enough that it might remain unemotional and fit GD.
Personally, as a libertarian, I support one of two alternatives: marriage recognized between any two people (same or different genders), or no legally recognized marriage at all. In fact, I rather prefer the latter as giving the greatest flexibility for all people to form whatever relationships they wish with no single type of relationship being given special favors. But as a federalist, I recognize it is not the place of the federal government to be in the business of defining marriage, and so I opposed DOMA and do oppose a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage, as was recently proposed.
However, while I am presently reserving judgment on it, I saw this idea today from a well-known conservative pundit, which I shall link you to and quote the relevant portion of right now:
Now for the moment, ignore the source of this idea (as I usually do when he speaks on so-called “moral” issues.)
Despite the rapid extension of “substantive due process” arguments that are starting to put almost every issue within the power of the feds, marriage is traditionally a state concern. This would further federalism by keeping that within a state’s control. Now we went all over that sort of argument discussing Lawrence, but keep it in mind.
Now consider the effect of such an amendment. Nationally recognized gay marriage would just about cause a revolt in a large number of states. With this amendment in place, people in Alabama would no longer have any interest in what Hawaii did with the issue. The anti-gay Christian lobbyists would have almost zero incentive to fight court battles in those states to defeat it, because the ultimate court decision would pose no “danger” of resulting in legal marriages recognized in the Christian lobbyist’s core region of supporters.
Now one could certainly hold to the “all or nothing” line, but the “all”, even could it be achieved, runs a great risk of causing a dramatic backlash from the parts of this country in which social conservatives still flourish. There may seem like no reason to compromise when your side has the chance to win the whole kit n’ kaboodle through the court system, but the possibility remains of a social conservative reactionary movement to that result that would be unpleasant for all involved and create a vitriolic hate-filled culture war. If an amendment like this were to pass, the socially progressive states would become like isolated test-cases. Once the rest of the country sees that gay marriage in those states hasn’t brought the sky falling down, public opinion would gradually warm to the idea until the majority of states would adopt gay marriage, at which point the ones that didn’t would be put under pressure to adopt it (or at least agree to recognize it) for practical reasons since they have to deal with those states on a regular basis.
Again, as a libertarian I don’t advocate the present system of marriage. But as a federalist, and as someone who would rather the country not become embroiled in a divisive fight and throw the control of the GOP even further into the hands of the social-conservative wing, the idea at least gave me pause.