By the way, for those who use the social argument, e.g. prohibition failed, so will this, I see your point, but I think it is flawed.
Generally, I agree. We should not use the Constitution to socially engineer our society. Just because some busy body thinks drinking is a sin, we should not constitutionally prohibit it.
But, here’s the difference.
Prohibition sought to prohibit something that we had been doing for thousands of years – drinking alcohol. Just because someone put prohibition in the Constitution, we weren’t going to stop drinking.
The Federal Marriage Amendment does not seek to prohibit historic social activity, it seeks to preserve the historic, traditional marriage relationship that no one questioned up until a couple of years ago. The courts have been too willing to undemocratically push the gay marriage agenda on us, so maybe we should block the courts and the lobbyists with an amendment until there is an overwhelming democratic consensus in favor of gay marriage.
After all, gay marriage isn’t really accepted or legal right now anyway. A constitutional amendment won’t change that. But, a constitutional amendment would prohibit a court from changing a social fabric carefully built over several millennia.