John McCain merely took the tradional "states rights" position, while pointing out that the already extant Marriage Act has been in place for years and not one court has ruled against it --- thus why amend the Consitution?
My perspective -- I would be happy to see such an amendment passed, but even if passed by the Senate, the House, signed by the President and confirmed by 38 states --- it would not prevent "civil unions" which is what the gays want anyway. It's all about the money. The Christian church lost this a long time ago when they permitted the States to issue marriage licenses.
First, I am glad that the possibility of a constitutional amendment concerning marriage is before us. At the founding, there was no concern for marriage or family in the federal consitution, and most state constitutions explicitly provided for an established religion which gave precise definition to marriage and family. Over time, some limits to the abilty of the states to interfere in marriage and family developed, as for example when the state of Oregon attempted to prohibit private schooling and the U.S. Supreme Court discovered that states could not do this.
Second, I am also happy to see that we got 49 votes on the first try, and believe that through a combination of political effort to change the composition of the Senate, and reconsideration of what exactly should be in the marriage amendment, that we will soon gain the two-thirds majority we will need in that body. If we gain the assent of the Senate, I do believe the necessary majority in the House will be easy to obtain. The next big hurdle will be the ratification of the three-fourths majority of our states. A constitutional amendment does indeed require a large and widespread majority, and this is a good thing.
Third, I don't think we want to interfere with the First Amendment guarantee of Freedom of Association, nor the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of Equal Rights. As long as we do not interfere with these guarantees, nobody can argue that we are anti-gay or anti-civil unions. We remain commited to allowing people to associate as they chose, and to continually reviewing all laws to provide for equal rights.
Fourth, I don't think we want to interfere with the Supreme Court's decision in the Texas Sodomy case, which declares that the state has no interest in private homosexual acts. That is, we are commited to protecting a sphere of private behavior among consenting adults. Again, another proof that we are not anti-gay.
Fifth, our concern regarding marriage and children is, as was expressed in the minority opinion of the Massachusetts supreme court, the bearing and raising of children. Marriage serves the purpose of identifying the parents of our children and, more precisely, the fathers of them. Even more precisely, marriage serves the purpose of indicating whom the mother has recognized - by reserving herself - to be the father of her children.
Our concern is for the children, whether they, the children, are male or female, and even whether they are genetically predisposed to be straight or gay. All children, all of them, need their two natural parents. Only in very exceptional cases should we remove children from their natural parents.
As to why children need their natural parents, one reason is the love of people for their natural children. The cases of abuse and neglect of stepchildren and adoptive children and of children over which non-natural parents act as guardians are legion. To deny this evidence is to reveal that you are such an ideologue that you put your idealogy ahead of the happiness of children. This is really bad form of extremism.
A second reason is that children can see in their natural parents how people made out of the same genetic stuff as they, deal with their genetic predispositions, either for the good or for the bad. This is especially important with regard to how a person deals with his or her genetic predisposition regarding sexual orientation. Most people are genetically predisposed to be strongly heterosexual, the same way that most people are genetically predisposed to be strongly right-handed. Obviously it would have to be this way (regarding sexual orientation), or else our existence as a species would be in jeopardy.
However, there are other people whose genetic predispostions range from weakly heterosexual to weakly homosexual. These people, when they are children, need to see how their parents and their other close blood relatives deal with their own sexualities. Plucking people out of their birth families and sticking them here or there with other families recklessly disregards our need to discover our potentialities, and to make good choices about whom we choose to become.
Obviously, there are times that we do need to place children into homes with no blood connection. This should be the exception, rather than the rule. And, not that the matter has come to be controversial, we need to establish the rule in law. This means developing a federal Constitutional amendment recognizing the role of marriage and the family in society.
The answer is to impeach the judges. It's already in the Constitution.
Thus, we not only live in a republic, we also live in an enlightened theocracy that avoids sectarian squabbles over theology and ritual, squabbles which are best left to Christian churches and Jewish religious leaders.I don't think that Kirk would have characterized our nation as a Theocracy, even one that "avoids sectarian squabbles" due to the lack of an established church.
Kirk was often pointing out that Natural Law, Transcendent Order and Religious Virtue were to be reflected in the human law and only through legislatures.
He had no use for Judges and Executives not following sworn duty.
Our nation was set up with a General Sovereignty for the states and Limited Sovereignty for the Federal government. The issues of licensed clergy and justices of the peace (I think that's the only office Kirk ever held) were issues for the states.
The "full faith and credit" issue is where the marriage perversion throws itself into the Federal and Constitutional cauldron.
What we are seeing now is political jockeying, not finely crafted legislation. The election looms and post election, this issue can be addressed based upon the path the electorate take. The problem is that terms like "marriage" are being perverted; language has been high-jacked by the "armed doctrine" as Kirk would say.
Again, some good thoughts, but I think that using the term "Theocracy", even to make a limited point, is a grave error. It is our culture and our government that are being perverted in this instance; the perversion of our religious denominations is only partial and transitory. As Elliot says, "The world is trying the experiment of attempting to form a civilized but non-Christian mentality. The experiment will fail; but we must be very patient in awaiting its collapse; meanwhile redeeming the time; so that the Faith may be preserved alive through the dark ages before us; to renew and rebuild civilization, and to save the world from suicide."