The Washington Post seems to think that the FMA is so obviously evil that it’s not necessary to present a consistent argument against it. The conclusion of their editorial (“Kill This Amendment“) is pretty over the top. “The combination of this proposal’s radicalism and its consideration in the middle of an election year commands a strong rebuke from those members who retain enough shame to oppose a constitutional amendment whose express purpose is to deny equal treatment to U.S. citizens. Even opponents of gay marriage, about which people of conscience legitimately disagree, should balk at this measure, which would prevent a democratic majority in any state ever from recognizing it.” So wait, which is it? Can “people of conscience” legitimately disagree with same-sex marriage, or are people who disagree with it supporters of discrimination who have no shame? Also, the Post says nothing about the possibility that in the absence of FMA, the federal courts will impose same-sex marriage in a few years. If that happened, the Post would probably think it a good thing (“equal treatment”). Here’s the kicker: “A strong vote against the Federal Marriage Amendment would send a powerful message that amending the Constitution is not a solution for every non-problem that generates a bad cause.” Whereas those who support it think that amending the Constitution is a solution for every problem that generates a bad cause. I guess FMA is an issue where the Post feels no need to try to persuade the unconverted.