The president has thrown his support behind an attempt to write discrimination into the Constitution and to deny protections for LGBT [Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered] families."

Peoria, Ill.: Peter Sprigg stated in the previous exchange that the amendment is necessary because "The role of marriage in bringing together men and women for the natural reproduction of the human race and for raising the children of their unions to maturity in a mother-father household is central to the PUBLIC purpose of marriage." This makes no sense to me as it would mean no single parents or male-male or female-female parenting situations. Am I missing something?

Praveen Fernandes: I absolutely agree with you. Such a simple conception of marriage denies the reality that our government permits marriages that do not result in children. Thus, infertile couples are permitted to marry; postmenapausal women are permitted to marry.

College Park, Md.: It seems like the fundamental logical difference between the arguments of people who are for and against homosexual marriage lies in the definition of marriage itself. How would you defend homosexual marriage to those who think of marriage as a union for the purpose of procreation, rather than a union for the purpose of love between two people?

Praveen Fernandes: I think that I touched upon this question in my response to another question. For those who see marriage as solely for purposes of procreation, I would ask whether they support denial of marriage licenses to infertile couples or to post-menapausal women. The truth is that marriage serves many purposes, not simply procreation. Our legal system seems to recognize this. Further, it is important to point out that LGBT have children and healthy families. These families are sometimes created used assisted reproductive technologies (the same fertility technologies used by heterosexual couples who have trouble conceiving children) and are sometimes created through adoption.

Boston, Mass.: To stop this amendment, we need either 34 Senators or 13 statehouses. Is this realistic? I think 14 or 15 Senators voted against DOMA and we could pick up a many more on the grounds that this is an AMENDMENT, and because it would actually strip away rights from couples in Vermont (and soon, Mass.) who complied with the laws of their states.

Praveen Fernandes: I hope that this is realistic. We have certainly spoken with a good number of Senators who believe in the sanctity of the constitution and who would oppose an attempt to use the constitutional amendment process in an unprecedented way to deny rights to a group of Americans. (The amendment process has never been used to do this!!!) I think you are right that more individuals would (hopefully) oppose a Constitutional amendment than would oppose a statute like DOMA. Your last point is critical, too---I think that Members of Congress are realizing that the amendment's language could strip rights whether or not they are connected with formal "marriage" status. The amendment's vague "legal incidents" language could render unenforceable the protections that civil unions and piece-meal benefits legislation afford LGBT couples.

Read the whole thing here:
Gay Marriage Amendment (washingtonpost.com): "The president has thrown his support behind an attempt to write discrimination into the Constitution and to deny protections for LGBT [Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered] families.' "

I think a major point in that last statement I copied was that the constitution was never used (nor was it created) to discriminate and take rights away. Read it yourself or read what I posted below, when I brought the Constitution into discussion. The only thing that was ever taken away was alcohol. That'z not a basic civil right, but do u see the Constitution saying that such-and-such person cannot drink? NO! That'z not the purpose of the constitution.... Bah! My head hurts by the ignorance of today's society. Maybe, someday, we could all just stop the discrimination. Who's next after gays? Heterosexual couples not planning on children? (*GASP* What an atrocity! Those sickos! hehe)