I don’t know why Dorgan or Conrad should tell Massachusetts what to do. Just make sure individual states have the right to define what constitutes a marriage within their state. DOMA did that.

What the Federal Marriage Amendment seeks to do is dictate to the people of Mass what their state can and can’t do. On principle, I believe the Tenth Amendment was intended purely to not do that. As long as the DOMA exempts states from having to honor a Mass marriage under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, let Mass do whatever their voters decide. But the voters in damned near every other state have spoken and if gay marriage and abortion on demand are what Mass wants, it sends a stark picture of what the Democratic Party is all about. That is more valuable for national politics than trying to get Mass to stop marrying gays.

And if the issue mattered enough to people, Dorgan and Conrad would not be in the Senate, but they are, meaning something else takes precedence for the people of ND. When ND sends them packing, get back to me on the outrage that people show on Gay Marriage. About the time the SCOTUS forces states to honor Mass’s marriages and offer gay marriages themselves or voters care enough to send incumbents who voted against it packing, the Federal Amendment will get passed. Until then, it is unnecessary and people just don’t care enough.

On the other hand it’ll be hard for a judge to ignore the defense of marriage to the US Constitution.

Hopefully we can make the voters realize the disrespect we’re getting out of Washington.

On the other, other hand, we do live in a republic in which we elect representatives to make their best judgments, not necessarily what 51+% of their constituents want.

Exactly. I don’t think the point of the post is to say they aren’t doing their jobs but maybe to suggest they aren’t the best representitives for their state. Something the voters need to keep in mind next election cycle…

how is the state legislature selecting senator for their contituents as oppose to the constituents choosing their senators themselves suppose to better assure senators represent their contituents?

The House of Representatives are there to represent the state’s constituents. The Senate is supposed to represent the state, not be another House of Representatives.

…having the state legislatures select for the contituents (as oppose to the contituents doing it themself…

And wouldn’t gerrymandering entering into the choosing of our Senators distort it even more?

Come on, DD! spill it –the suspence is killing me!

Absolutely false. The TMA codifies what the institution of marriage has always been throughout history: A heterosexual institution. It is also the will of the vast majority of Americans, and probably the vast majority of people in the world. I know that 1.5 billion Muslims agree that marriage is exclusively heterosexual.