I imagine that what your correspondent is getting at is the need for the political branches to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over certain questions under Article III, Sections 1 and 2. I agree with that view myself, and have argued for it over the years as a better response than constitutional amendments to seriously bad (as in extra-constitutional) Supreme Court decisions. But there are two reasons for thinking that same-sex marriage is not the question to make this fight on.

First, the legitimacy of this move–jurisdiction stripping, especially in areas where the courts have already ruled and where other provisions of the Constitution are supposedly at issue–is quite controversial. It can readily be portrayed as a threat to every civil liberty and constitutional protection we have. I don’t think we should surrender to this mistaken analysis, but I do think we should pick our battles: Choose issues where people are overwhelmingly on the other side from the courts, establish the legitimacy of jurisdiction-stripping during battles over that issue, and then move on to more controversial matters. The Pledge of Allegiance might be one such issue, flag-burning another. I don’t think same-sex marriage qualifies.

The second reason touches on a controversy that is central to the FMA debate. The federal government does not even arguably have the power to strip state courts of jurisdiction without a constitutional amendment. If you believe that it’s necessary to block 50 state judiciaries from imposing same-sex marriage and calling it “federalism,” the FMA (or something very like it) is the only way to go.