Conservative sanity, compared with fundamentalist panic:

Well, if you believe in federalism, it's better that we allow these things to be left to the state. My personal belief is that marriage is a religious ceremony. And it should be dealt with religiously. The state really shouldn't be involved. The state, both federal and state-wise, got involved mostly for health reasons 100 years or so ago.

But this should be a religious matter. All voluntary associations, whether they're economic or social, should be protected by the law. But to amend the Constitution is totally unnecessary to define something that's already in the dictionary.

We do know what marriage is about. We don't need a new definition or argue over a definition and have an amendment to the Constitution. To me, it just seems so unnecessary to do that. It's very simply that the states should be out of that business, and the states -- I mean, the states should be able to handle this. The federal government should be out of it.

Giuliani's position - that there should be a federal amendment not if DOMA falls but if more states decide to adopt marriage equality - is befuddling. If you allow one state to try the reform, why is there a numerical limit on how many you're going to allow? Does it matter if a state decides to do it by legislative action rather than by the courts? And what if it's a combination, as in Massachusetts, where the legislature and governor have now upheld the reform initially dictated by the court? Is federalism okay until a critical mass of states moves in one direction? Or is Rudy making this up as he goes along?

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.