I've yet to hear anyone, Mr. Dobson included, explain to me why a federal Constitutional amendment is necessary to prevent gay marriage. All legal challenges to the federal DOMA have failed. No state laws have been overturned.
The Supreme Court, in a decision grossly misinterpreted decision in Lawrence, specifically said its rationale in decriminalizing homosexual relations should not be interpreted as a guarantee that marriage as a civil right. Consequently, the state has a rational basis for excluding homosexuals from participating in it. I disagree with the Court, but fail to see this portends a rapid acceptance of the position by the Court.
And the last time I checked, civilization in Canada, Spain, the Netherlands, and even Massachusetts hadn't ended upon the creation of gay marriage in those sovereign states. In fact, marriage has ALWAYS been the legislative purview of the states in this country. Republicans used to be for preserving states' rights. This sudden deviation from what was once a core principle of Republicanism strikes me as pure politics.
Further, it strikes me as entertaining that someone with a Ph.D., like Mr. Dobson, confounds supporting "traditional marriage" with the need for a constitutional amendment to discriminate against gay men and women to enter into marriage. The two are not synonymous. And the polls that Mr. Dobson dismisses (because he doesn't like their results and has no logical capacity to dispute scientifically verified results), show that Americans have a very fluid opinion on this matter. While a majority of Americans may disfavor gay marriage, a growing majority oppose amending the constitution to prohibit gay marriage.
Believe it or not, those concepts are intellectually distinct. Amending the Constitution is something that should not be done lightly. It is not something that happens when a bare majority expresses moral disapproval. Most importantly, it is not something that should be done to discriminate.
Mr. Dobson compares his crusade to the slow purge of slavery from American and English society. If you ever needed a better example of his irrational thought, then I need to consider relocating to a country that still has a moral compass.
My disappointment with CNN is an entirely different matter. While I appreciate that you're publishing this commentary to refute claims that you have a liberal bias, I don't understand why you wouldn't allow for a counter-commentary to accompany Mr. Dobson's article. By showing only his position, you give him credibility and admit a liberal bias (which we all know doesn't exist).