This article is subtitled: "Why we need a national definition of marriage", and I found it very helpful. In the past I have been an advocate of the idea of letting the states decide the definition of marriage, mostly because I don't like the idea of messing around with the Constitution. But more and more I am convinced that this will not work. What happens if New York allows gay marriages, and Utah doesn't, and a couple moves from NY to Utah? Are they not married anymore? What about children, insurance policies, benefits?
In this article, Maggie Gallagher makes some incredibly good points. She even brings up the one point that has Brad unsure about whether he will support the amendment--although she doesn't have the same opinion as he does, obviously. Brad doesn't feel comfortable about the amendment because it would effectively block the legal reinstatement of polygamy by the Church (not that he believes polygamy will be back anytime soon) if that is in God's plan. (Presumably the prophet will know if this is a possibility. If the prophet recommends we vote for the amendment, Brad has no trouble supporting it.)
My only beef with this article is the fact that she calls the Church "The Church of the Latter-day Saints". Nice try, but she leaves out the most important part. Oh, well.