Q: Should Congress try again next year to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage?
We were taught that the Constitution was written to allow people from very different social, economic, ethnic, and religious backgrounds to live together in relative harmony and create a strong nation. The Constitution was never intended to be used as a tool to discriminate against an entire segment of American citizens.
Sandy Warren, Tonawanda
Marriage between gays, like those between heterosexuals, should be under the jurisdiction of the states. The federal government has far bigger fish to fry.
John Verbanoff, Hamburg
I do not believe the Constitution should be used to limit the freedoms of the American people. The issue of gay marriage is a personal one.
Christine Parker, Sanborn
Conservative Republicans have once again attempted to divide the American people by demonizing gay couples while distracting voters from failed policies. If prisoners are allowed to marry, as they are, should homosexual couples be denied that right?
Chris Terranova, Lancaster
No. Instead, they should pass a constitutional amentment that bans any form of media from attending, reporting or photographing any gay marriage. No media, no problem. Simple as that.
Karen Gordon, Perry
As a straight woman, I strongly object to Congress trying again to pass the amendment. By doing so they would be saying that gay and lesbian people are not privileged enough to have the same civil rights as other Americans.
Jessica A. Zwolak, Buffalo
Let the proposed amendment die gracefully. Gay marriage is nothing more than legally recognizing relationships that already exist. Gay marriage is nothing more than reversing discriminatory laws that deny all people equal rights.
Michael Rebmann, Buffalo
Yes, Congress should try again to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. If not, gay marriage should be between a man and a woman, if they're both gay. Think about it.
Leonard Jaworski, Lackawanna
Absolutely and emphatically no. The Constitution should not dictate whom someone can and cannot marry. We should have learned our lesson with the Prohibition amendment.
Deanne Plonka, Buffalo
Congress needs to get serious and concentrate its efforts in staying focused in order to effectively solve important problems, not waste precious time on such a superficial subject that has already been rejected.
MaryAnne Ritchie, Tonawanda
The republic will crumble from intolerance and inequality, not gay marriages. This issue is a smoke screen for those whose economic policies are destroying the American family.
Barry A. Zavah, Buffalo
I would support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages if that is what it takes to keep marriage as it was intended, a union between a man and a woman.
Paula Sinclair, Cheektowaga
Gay marriage shouldn't be even a question on the mind of mankind. The majority rule was this country's way, but now rules seem to change to fit the minority.
Richard P. Ritenburg, Alden
With a son overseas, I have more to worry about than a baseless fear that gay marriage is such a threat it requires a constitutional ban. Don't the president and Congress have more pressing concerns? For the record, though, gays couldn't make a bigger mess of marriage and family than straights already have.
Gary Earl Ross, Buffalo