some bullshit by the WSJ:

Now, even some who support a constitutional remedy wonder about the language. There is debate about whether the amendment's language would bar states from endorsing civil unions, which Mr. Bush says they should be free to do. We think this entire issue should be decided in the states, by the people through their elected legislators. And if the voters want to alter the definition of marriage as a new social consensus develops, that should be their democratic right.

But a political debate over gay marriage is precisely what its supporters do not want. They are the ones who want to impose a national solution via the courts. What the President endorses is not a federal solution but a federalist solution. In contrast to an executive order or federal law or regulation, a constitutional amendment requires not only the endorsement of two thirds of the House and Senate but the assent of the legislatures of three-quarters of the states. Amendments are historically difficult to pass, and the odds favor skepticism about its chances. But merely by being offered it will serve as a brushback pitch to the courts that this issue should be settled by democratic means.

obviously they think that. that's the good conservative way to think. but that's not what the FMA is all about. H.J. Res. 56 says this:

SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.'.

that means that courts in massachusetts cannot construe their own state's constitution to require equal rights for gay people. that's not federalism. putting the vote to all of america isn't federalism either. sure, it may be democratic in comparison to "an executive order or federal law or regulation," but let's not confuse that with "a federalist solution."

now, i'm no conservative nor any type of states' rightist - i'd support an executive order banning laws against same-sex marriage any day - but i do think that this is the chance to do right what roe v. wade did wrong.