But the language of the amendment doesn’t mention private parties, only government. Boaz seems to suggest that private parties would be affected, and I don’t see that. None of the scenarios seem likely – I find it hard to believe that a domestic assault wouldn’t be prosecuted because of this amendment. I also doubt that Arnold & Porter, a decidedly liberal/pro-Democrat firm, really undertook such an unbiased and lawyerly analysis (and who, exactly, solicited this “analysis?”)

I think that if we’re seeking to curb litigation, gay marriage is the wrong way to go. In fact, the whole project to me seems to open the door to a flood of litigation that will erode both private freedoms and traditional values.

Of course, so was the 1st Amendment, but I see a fundamental difference between protecting the rights of a minority against a majority, and an attempt to permanently place an extra burden on a minority even if a majority of the people later approve of lifting it. (This is assuming the state in question isn’t one of those where the distinction between constitutional and legislative law has been blurred by hundreds of trivial amendments. The worst cases I’ve seen are states with an easy process for amendment by initiative but no way to get a direct vote of the people without proposing an amendment.)

I’m not saying that the amendment in question is a well-worded or should be passed, but it’s fairly disingenious to say that the judiciary won’t gt involved if w just leave well enough alone…. THEY aree the ones who INSTIGATED this problem!

(That said, I think the best amendment is a simple one: “Nothing in this Constitution means or can be construed to mean that same sex couples either have the right to marry or the right to a marital arrangement by a different name.” Simple, and leaves the question to the legislature, where it belonged to begin with.)