Replies

Unfortunately our own side is pushing for something that would hand a major victory to judicial activism in the name of fighting against it: the Federal Marriage Amendment. If this goes through, it will be the ultimate surrender to the notion that judges really do have the power to amend the Constitution, since the whole point of the FMA is to amend it "back". If we're going to be successful at defeating judicial lawlessness, then we must not allow ourselves to give in to that notion. We have to acknowledge that the Constitution hasn't changed in the slightest despite their misrepresentations of it, and that therefore continued misrepresentations will not be tolerated, and will be dealt with forcefully.

The actual means which we ultimately decide on are not as important as the conviction we maintain that the judges do not have the power to alter the meaning of the law. That conviction is often the hardest thing to get across to people - sadly, even to conservatives.

I totally agree. The provisions are already well established to limit the powers of the branches. That the Judiciary insists on encroaching is a matter to be answered directly, not REacted to. A Marriage Definition Amend, would simply REACT to the illegal over stepping of the Mass judiciary. I do not believe that we should be cavalier in amending the constitution at all. Unintended Consequences are so easily overlooked, until they begin to bite us...