It isn't a criminal offense Gary. It isn't recognised by law, and that can change. And do I really need to read the Constitution to you? It is plain, and once people have stepped far enough away from discriminatory religious practices, it will change. This is a point that will be moot in the not too distant future. As the old die off, the young become more and more accepting of what they consider harmless and archaic. And when they see that it is religion in fact, that has done the most terrible and hateful things that humans could think of, they will finally see that a true religion doesn't oppress people, it frees them. It's unfortunately about whether or not people can bide their time, though they shouldn't have to.

If a person has the right to marry legally, it is discriminatory to alter the definition of who is allowed to marry. That is plainly obvious in the Constitution. To create an ammendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as only between a woman and a man, is 100% discrimination and would never stand before the Supreme Court. And if marriage isn't defined already in the Constitution, then it is clear that it is legally acceptable to marry someone of the same sex, as long as their relationship meets the legal criteria. Religion stays in the church, and those relgions that don't wish to recognise it, don't have to.

And the people are free to decide that, by laws that are passed, but not when those laws would infringe on the rights guarunteed in the Constitution, by the 9th, 10th and 14th ammendments. The laws would be challenged and the Supreme Court would decide if they were discriminatory in nature. Our union is formed, and established. My point is that there will be no ammendment to the Constituion that defines marriage unless it allows for the rights of all humans of legal age to marry the person of their choosing legally, not religiously. A one man/one woman marriage definition ammendment would clearly be unconstituional.

You keep saying that but you don't explain why??

I don't think the SC can overturn a Constitutional Amendment. The 18th Amendment on Prohibition wasn't overturned, it was repealed by Congress.

In any case it's pretty unlikely the FMA will ever be passed so we will continue to deal with this problem at state level.

Unconstituional meaning that latter definition would not pass Congress in the first place. And I think I explained myself clearly when I said the 9th, 10th and 14th ammendments are the reason why you cannot discriminate based on gender. And any state law passed denying gay marriage could be challenged before the SC as an unconstitutional law.

And they will be. The ultimate authors of these laws are the rarely seen puppet masters of the far religious right, and they are very smart.

Smart enough to know that these laws are unconstitutional.

Smart enough to know that getting them passed will eventually result in them being overturned as unconstitutional.

Smart enough to know this process will take many years, or as they view time, many election cycles.

Smart enough to know that this will allow this issue to be flogged to bring out the ignorant religious right sheep to the polls for a long, long time, ensuring the right stays in power.

Smart enough to know that once an election cycle ends with them victorious, they can "forget" about actually doing anything about the issue, until just before the next election cycle starts.

And smart enough to realize that, even though WE are onto their game, their flock of sheep will never, ever figure it out.

The very last thing these people want is for the issue to be settled, one way or the other. If that happens, they lose their cattleprod, and shortly thereafter, their hold on power.

Never underestimate the power of easily-led people in large numbers.