Dale Carpenter makes it in a paper published at Cato's site.

Here's the executive summary:

Members of Congress have proposed a constitutional amendment preventing states from recognizing same-sex marriages. Proponents of the Federal Marriage Amendment claim that an amendment is needed immediately to prevent same-sex marriages from being forced on the nation. That fear is even more unfounded today than it was in 2004, when Congress last considered the FMA. The better view is that the policy debate on same-sex marriage should proceed in the 50 states . . . .

A person who opposes same-sex marriage on policy grounds can and should also oppose a constitutional amendment foreclosing it, on grounds of federalism, confidence that opponents will prevail without an amendment, or a belief that public policy issues should only rarely be determined at the constitutional level.

There are four main arguments against the FMA. First, a constitutional amendment is unnecessary because federal and state laws, combined with the present state of the relevant constitutional doctrines, already make court-ordered nationwide same-sex marriage unlikely for the foreseeable future. An amendment banning same-sex marriage is a solution in search of a problem.

Second, a constitutional amendment defining marriage would be a radical intrusion on the nation's founding commitment to federalism in an area traditionally reserved for state regulation, family law. There has been no showing that federalism has been unworkable in the area of family law.

Third, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage would be an unprecedented form of amendment, cutting short an ongoing national debate over what privileges and benefits, if any, ought to be conferred on same-sex couples and preventing democratic processes from recognizing more individual rights.

Fourth, the amendment as proposed is constitutional overkill that reaches well beyond the stated concerns of its proponents, foreclosing not just courts but also state legislatures from recognizing same-sex marriages and perhaps other forms of legal support for same-sex relationships. Whatever one thinks of same-sex marriage as a matter of policy, no person who cares about our Constitution and public policy should support this unnecessary, radical, unprecedented, and overly broad departure from the nation's traditions and history.  

Andrew Sullivan chimes in:

You have in this a classic example of the distinction between conservatism and fundamentalism. Conservatism seeks to govern society as it is and as it evolves. It allows for diversity and federalism and local rule. Instead of demonizing minorities, conservatives seek ways to integrate and include them and foster responsibility among them. Fundamentalists, in contrast, begin with an a priori religious deduction - homosexuality is Biblically or "naturally" wrong and homosexuals as such do not exist - and proceed to enforce that view on everyone. If constitutional procedures or principles of federalism get in the way of such doctrinal truth, then those procedures and principles must be abandoned. There is no extreme they will not seek, because God demands it. You saw that in the Terri Schiavo case, where the Christianist right abandoned even a pretense of believing in federalism or the rule of law. And you see it in the case of the FMA. This battle is not just about gays. It's about the survival of limited government conservatism and inclusion within the Republican party.

The Senate is current debating a constitution amendment forbidding flag-burning.

Why?

Is this a big problem in the country?

I just don't think we can compell reverence, nor should we.

A Nashua, New Hampshire man was arrested when he produced a videotape of a conversation he had with a detective at his home.

The Gannons installed a video and audio recording system at their home, a four-unit building at 22-28 Morgan St., to monitor the front door and parking areas, family members told police. They installed the cameras about two years ago, buying the system at Wal-Mart, Janet Gannon told the police, according to reports filed in court. The Gannons have owned the property, which is assessed at $382,700, for the past three years, city records show.

Janet Gannon spoke with The Telegraph by phone Wednesday afternoon, before going to bail out her husband. She said they installed the system in response to crime in the neighborhood, and at their house.

“We’ve had two break-ins. One guy came right up our stairs and started beating on my husband, and we called the cops,” she said. Another time, after someone broke into a camper on their property, Janet Gannon said an officer suggested they were “too rich” for the neighborhood, and should move.

The security cameras record sound and audio directly to a videocassette recorder inside the house, and the Gannons posted warnings about the system, Janet Gannon said.

On Tuesday night, Michael Gannon brought a videocassette to the police department, and asked to speak with someone in “public relations,” his wife said and police reported.

Gannon wanted to lodge a complaint against Karlis, who had come to the family’s house while investigating their sons, Janet Gannon said. She said Karlis showed up late at night, was rude, and refused to leave when they asked him.

“He was just very smart-mouthed. He put his foot in the door, and my husband said, ‘Excuse me, I did not invite you in, please leave,’ and he wouldn’t,” Janet Gannon said. “We did not invite him in, we asked him to leave, and he wouldn’t.”

After the police arrested the Gannons’ sons, Janet Gannon said, they “secured” the house, and told her and her sister-in-law they had to stay out of it from around 8:45 p.m. Tuesday until about 4 a.m. Wednesday.

Police said they were waiting to get a warrant to search the house, Janet Gannon said.

“They were waiting for a warrant to seize the cameras and the tapes in my house . . . because they said having these cameras was against the law. They’re security cameras,” she said, adding, “They said they could do that. They could seize my apartment.”

Apparently, if it doesn't involve throwing mud at the Bush administration, civil rights really aren't all that interesting to the ACLU and the liberal-left.

It looks like I have to do a little research on this since I routinely record telephone conversations and have a video system of my own at my place of business--its called CYA.

A Republican.

No kidding.

Narcotics officers trying to serve a search warrant, were greeted by gunfire wounding three officers. They returned fire and killed their assailant--a 92 year-old woman

Statements have been made to the effect that everything was done by the book--I would suggest that someone needs to rewrite the book when you end up in a gun fight with a 92 year old woman.

How much trouble is the Atlanta police force in?

The woman was black. Black Panthers were making statements to the press. Johnny Cochrane's law firm has been retained.

Yikes.

UPDATE: Some new details are coming out, such as these were plainclothes police with a "no-knock" warrant, which means the only knock you hear is your door hitting the floor. Police state that they identified themselves anyways.

So what? Three guys bust in your door, do you automatically think police? The cops were fortunate she didn't have a better weapon.

More Bad Cop News catalogs incidents like these, including the shooting of a 50 year-old Huntsville, AL man under similar circumstances, as well as a Richmond man, shot on his front lawn in front of his children.

As I said, the "book" needs an edit. These tactics are designed to protect the police and to hell with the public.

A couple of miles from my home is a road-side memorial for a police officer who was shot to death during a routine traffic stop. His death was attributed to insufficient caution in approaching the vehicle. Sufficient caution may be best illustrated by my recent experience in getting a traffic ticket for a "rolling stop".

I was a little heated over a "discussion" with my son. When I saw the lights, I may have gesticulated my annoyance. I pulled into a parking lot of a local autoparts store and waited, and waited, and waited. Only after another police cruiser appeared did the officer exit his vehicle to ask me for my license and registration. The whole time, the second officer was standing up behind his car door, with his hand on his weapon.

All this, because the officer perceived me to be agitated. The officer acted to preserve his own safety, but in doing so, he put me and my family at the risk of being shot and killed.

Think I'm kidding?

At around 4 a.m. Saturday morning two undercover officers called for back-up after witnessing a dispute outside the club among a group of men, including Bell. Police say Bell then got into his car with his friends and rammed into the undercover police officer who was following them, as well as an unmarked police van. Police say that's when five officers fired at least 50 bullets into Bell's car and killed him. It's unclear whether the officers identified themselves.

It occurs to me that our soldiers in Iraq and our police share a similar dynamic--an unseen threat produces a predictable reaction--armor up.

Simply put, the police culture in our country has changed. An emphasis on "officer safety" and paramilitary training pervades today's policing, in contrast to the older culture, which held that cops didn't shoot until they were about to be shot or stabbed. Police in large cities formerly carried revolvers holding six .38-caliber rounds. Nowadays, police carry semi-automatic pistols with 16 high-caliber rounds, shotguns and military assault rifles, weapons once relegated to SWAT teams facing extraordinary circumstances. Concern about such firepower in densely populated areas hitting innocent citizens has given way to an attitude that the police are fighting a war against drugs and crime and must be heavily armed.

Everytime I encounter the police, I am keenly aware of the risk of being shot and I do everything possible to allay the officer's fear of me--seems odd doesn't it--I have to allay the officer's fears and he (or she) is the one with the hand on the butt of his gun.

The response to IEDs or drug dealers with high-powered ordnance is completely rational, but its social effect is devastating.

What do Iraqis think when they see a coalition patrol coming through their neighborhood? I don't know if the current insurgent tactics are part of a strategy to alienate the Iraqi people and coalition forces, but that is precisely what it accomplished--when everyone could be the enemy, then you treat everyone as the enemy--not exact a recipe for amicable community relations.

American police forces, by use of paramilitary tactics, accomplish the same outcome--the perception that they are an "occupying army"--the object of more fear than the criminals they are ostensibly there to protect us from.

The "obvious" solution is to make the police (or our soldiers) invulnerable to harm. A perfectly secure police force can also be a magnanimous one. Until that time, we may have to contemplate that crime has a far greater social cost than we may have realized.