We had a tremendous response to the question of the day. As the Senate prepares to take up the matter, we wanted to know if you were for or against a proposed constitutional amendment establishing marriage as a union between and man and woman.
We start with Virginia in Florida:
"Marriage is to be between a man and a woman. God's idea and his creation as set forth in His word, THE BIBLE. I will never vote for anyone that votes that marriage can be between same sex couples.
Yes, I am in favor of a constitutional ban on gay marriage.
The main purpose of the institution of marriage for a society is the orderly propagation of the human race through bearing and raising children.
If two people want to share a home together, that's their business, but same sex and marriage is everyone's business and it's simply not compatible with what's best for the society as a whole."
Maude in Mississippi agrees:
"YES, YES, YES, there should be a Marriage Protection Amendment to the Constitution because of the activist judges who seemingly think they wear crowns instead of robes."
Felix in Minnesota joins the chorus:
"Yes, I believe the constitution should be amended to protect the sacred bond of marriage. In the name of political correctness we cannot destroy a basic foundation of our society."
We had quite a few viewers, who like James in San Antonio, believe:
"What the constitution needs is a constitution protection amendment! The purpose of the constitution should be to limit the government, not the people. Such issues as who should be allowed to marry should be left to the states."
Here's Fred from Denver:
"The United States Constitution is one of the most important documents in the free world. Writing discrimination into the Constitution flies in the face of the Constitutions very purpose."
Steve in South Carolina wants the federal government to stay out of what he sees as a state's rights issue:
"It makes little sense to amend the Constitution in such a controversial matter. The states normally control marriage laws. Let each state control it's own destiny."
From Tennessee, BB writes:
"I challenge any 'straight' married couple to consider how their lives would be affected if their 'spouse' of 10,20 or 30 years became injured in an auto accident and was in a coma and they were prevented from being by their bedside or being able to participate in the difficult decisions on how to handle their healthcare or whether to keep them alive.
These are the real reasons why this is such an important right for ALL dedicated couples. This issue has NOTHING to do with sex. There are more pressing issues that all Americans need to pull together and question. For instance, why are we all paying so much for gas and when will our brothers, sisters, parents and children come home from Iraq."
Sue in Beavercreek, Ohio got fired up when she wrote:
"Short answer: No. Long answer: Hell, no.
I believe there should be civil unions not marriage for gays, but don't mess with the Constitution for that. Congress is in session so little of the year, that when they are they should spend the time debating issues and passing legislation that actually affects most people, not wasting more time on issues that are simply political and stand not a snowball's chance in you know where of being passed. (I already used that word once -- didn't want to overdo it.)"
Thank you all for writing. I wish we had room for everyone's opinion. We do our best to make sure that you get a representative sample of what people think. We do our very best to look at every mail that comes in. It helps us understand our viewers better. So keep writing.
I am taking some time off to attend some family events. See you in just a few days.
“Weekend Live” hosted by Brian Wilson airs 12 – 2 p.m. ET on Saturdays and Sundays.
Send your comments to: email@example.com.
Brian Wilson is a congressional correspondent for FOX News and anchor of the Sunday edition of "Weekend Live."