In this essay, I discuss the Constitution's commitment to three themes--state power, individual liberty, and equality--and then demonstrate how the FMA is uniquely contrary to all three. I do not intend to go so far as to suggest that the FMA would be an "unconstitutional amendment," [FN8] if such things are possible, nor do I mean to suggest that same-sex marriage is or should be affirmatively protected by the Constitution. I mean only to suggest that proposed amendments that are contrary to existing constitutional themes should be scrutinized warily for thematic coherence. Because the FMA is contrary to three powerful existing constitutional themes while furthering no other, the FMA would be a decidedly peculiar appendage to our modern Constitution.