I also find it interesting that these same people have no problem weakening the constitution by denying a group its civil rights based on religious veiws, and seems perfectly ok with separate but equal, and idea that has long been viewed as not equal at all.
I was a bit shocked when I watched that Bill O'reilly clip because I usually do not agree with much he has to say, but in this case, I agree with him, and his interview subject underscored my previous point - it all boils down to people whose only defense is "because I say so."
And regarding the trend of defining marriage in state or federal constitutions: it's a bad idea. A constitution is not a legal lexicon. In most other cases, legal definitions are contained in the headers of the laws to which they pertain. Putting these kinds of definitions in a constitution is an act of desperation, and is designed to circumvent the legal process.
Another way of looking at the constitutional amendment angle is this. There are laws in this country which prohibit elected officials from accepting certain gifts (an attempt at curtailing influence peddling.) Lawmakers who really wanted gifts from special interest groups and foreign governments could simply re-define "gift" as a constitutional amendment, as "something wrapped in bright paper with a pretty ribbon around it." Then they could say, "that yacht was not a gift from a special interest group. See, it was not wrapped in paper and ribbons, so, by definition, it was not a gift."
Of course, once again, a constitutional amendment requires a popular vote; but I stand by my assertion that popular vote usually is NOT the best way to determine equal rights for a minority group.
Let's take two men that married, both work, have decent careers etc. They adopt a child (or have one through surrogate mother etc) and then divorce, now in a "traditional" marriage the % of the time the female maintains bulk custody of the kids is beyond lopsided.
How ugly do you think a same sex divorce case would be? I'm not making a case against same sex marriage, I'm for it actually. Just coming up with items to discuss and see what people think is all. With everything being equal I see a lot of character bashing happening etc.
Honestly, I don't think that same-sex divorces would be any more or any less acrimonious than "traditional" divorces. Nor would they be any more or less complicated in division of assets. Some would be a simple dissolution, others would drag out for years... just like divorce court is now.