Just Two Sentences

"Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be redefined by activist judges. For the good of families, children and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage."

A little lukewarm? We can only hope. I'm sure y'all know my feelings on the matter, but a few rhetorical questions all the same: What business does the government have calling anything sacred? Who does have the authority to redefine it? Which is more often dangerous to society, activist judges or political majorities? If the amendment is for the good of, are its opponents for the evil of?

Here's a nice summary of same.