Federal Marriage Amendment
From what I've seen of the marriage amendments you cite (Nov. 2), they sound bad... but, to give you the other viewpoint, I'd still take those over the absolute judicial tyranny of Massachusetts. I think most people feel that way, and they didn't stop to think that the third choice would be to get a better amendment (like the "nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to require..." type language, for instance). Hopefully, now that they've got the main issue covered, next time, more moderate amendments can scale it back to something more reasonable.
I think it's kind of like this: a neighbor down the block had their house broken into and severely vandalized (that's how a lot of people feel about it, I think), so something needs to be done NOW. Boarding up all the windows and buying a bulletproof door is a bit extreme (and possibly damaging to the house), but if the current choices are that or nothing (that's all that made it to the ballot), boards it is.
Not the best analogy, but I think it gets the idea across. After Roe v Wade, a whole lot of people have basically said "ENOUGH!" - and the price they're willing to pay to follow through on that is pretty high.
At least, that's how I see it. If I had had that choice on the ballot, I'm not sure how I would have voted - I think it would depend on how imminent I thought the need was. A "nothing in this Constitution..." type amendment would be a no-brainer, of course. -- David Allen, Amarillo, Tex.