You are correct...

I misspoke if I gave the impression that I felt an amendment to the Constitution could be overturned by the courts... they cannot. You are right.

As for the rest... I warned you that we weren't going to agree on this. Still, let's discuss, shall we? Calmly and rationally...

They are either "playing the game" or they are not. It is inconsistent to say that the state has NO right to regulate marriage via licensing, but maintain they do have a right to regulate whether marriage is singular or plural; between two adults or not; incestuous; etc.

Dude... I'm making an inconsistent statement? Forget marriage altogether for one minute, and tell me WHEN polygamy is legal in the US? WHEN is it legal for an adult to have sex with a minor (statutory rape can still happen even if the sex is 100% consensual, you know)? WHEN is it legal to have sex with animals? Answer to all three: NEVER. So the question of how these quandaries effect my argument about gay marriage is still open... because they are ILLEGAL regardless of whether or not they are aspects of a proposed marriage.

Again, I am shocked that you defend the New Deal as "necessary", if not "successful" (gag, choke) government interventionism; AND want the state to regulate all of the aspects associated with marriage above, but find they have no intrinsic authority to regulate sex.

I do not defend "interventionism" as necessary... but I have in the past and will continue to defend the Keynesian economics employed during the several FDR Administrations between 1933 and 1941. And I have NEVER advocated that the Government should regulate SEX... do you advocate that? Do you actually think that the regulation of SEX is something within the purvue of the US Federal Government beyond the aforementioned determination of the age of consent? When did that come into the discussion? Are we back to making homosexual activity a felony crime?

I am simply and plainly stating that I don't think the Federal Government should be regulating "morality", be it who can or can't get married, who can or can't have this or that kind of sex, as long as they are both consenting adults that aren't hurting anyone else via their actions... period. Why is this so wrong?

I'm also puzzled as to why my position on the New Deal factors in at all. Government intervention in an economic crisis is hardly comparable to the government mandating who can or can't voluntarily choose to bind themselves to another consenting adult to gain the same benefits offered to those choosing a more "traditional" lifestyle. When did the "conservative" in you abandon the principles of individualism and personal freedom of choice? I find it impossible to correlate two middle class men looking to live a peaceful, productive life together as "man and wife" (it isn't something I am comfortable with, mind you... and I have moral quandaries in abundance) that are looking to share the tax and health insurance benefits that a more traditional "man and wife" are enjoying right next door with pedophiles, perverts and polygamists. Do you correlate the two examples as the same? If your answer is NO, then denying homosexuals the same status as heterosexuals is discrimination, which is un-Constitutional and illegal in these United States.

I won't cut and paste each and every statement you made that I disagree with... but I hope you see my point. I do not advocate the "gay lifestyle" that so many do these days, and I do think there is a moral issue with living such a lifestyle, but that doesn't negate the fact that the Federal government doesn't have the power or the right to grant privilege to one group of citizens and deny it to another based on sexual orientation, creed, race, age or physical ability.

They are either going to have to water-down the entire definition of marriage for EVERYONE, or they are going to have to get out of the marriage business all together. Short of amending the Constitution, as you stated, this should be EXCLUSIVELY a State's Rights issue. Individual States would best determine how civil marriages are contracted and-or dissolved, and if an individual State chose to enact an amendment to their State Constitution defining marriage as "one man, one woman" (as California did), then the Feds should step away and let the State run the matter as it sees best.

Finally, I apologize ahead of time if this post seems a bit confused. We had family in from out of town this weekend, and my opportunities to compose my thoughts were severely limited by circumstances. If something I have said is unclear, let me know and I will do my best to make it clearer as soon as possible.