no it does need to be amended to settle the marriage issue.
The amendment only follows what has been the law of the land and enforced as law of the land when it comes to producing families for raising children.
The amendment actuall affirms the state's rights to muck around with any marriage lite they may want and make other states free to ignore it.
The amendment also removes the homosexual marriage issue from the federal areana in areas liek social secuirty and immigration spousal visas.
Those others who SCREAM for immigration reform do not seem to grasp that homosexual marriage will be used to gain immigration visas for homospouses.
no it does need to be amended to settle the marriage issue. The amendment only follows what has been the law of the land and enforced as law of the land when it comes to producing families for raising children.
Just what 'law' is in the Constitution that you want to amend?
The amendment actuall affirms the state's rights to muck around with any marriage lite they may want and make other states free to ignore it.
Imo, neither States nor Feds have ever been granted the power to 'muck about' with marriage arrangements, other than in legal protections "for raising children".
The amendment also removes the homosexual marriage issue from the federal areana in areas liek social secuirty and immigration spousal visas.
'Significant others' should not be part of either area of law. Congress can correct this without constitutional amendments.
Those others who SCREAM for immigration reform do not seem to grasp that homosexual marriage will be used to gain immigration visas for homospouses.
Easily corrected by modifying immigration law.
There is no need to amend our Constitution in order to further 'protect' children & conventional marriage.
We and our children need more freedom & fewer laws..
call it laziness, but I am hereby officially plagiarizing myself to comment on your Marriage Ammendment position, from another post on this site:
"I would ask that our fellow proponents of less government, especially the 'paleo conservatives', consider the notion that perhaps it is time to get government OUT of the institution of marriage entirely. Religious entities (ie churches)could and would still marry people, according to their beliefs, and the two people could and would still enter into a legally recognized contract re: property etc. but the government (whether State or Federal) would have no say over what is "sanctified". I mean, regardless of what a given majority wishes at any given period in history, do we really want to equate the blessing of God with the blessing of the state? Blasphemy and bad policy are a heady mix for some. Remember: the separation of church and state is a good idea from BOTH angles... I don't want government involved in my worship anymore than I want YOUR (generically) religious beliefs influencing MY government."
I realize this is a fringey idea, but constantly ammending our Constitution every time someone's idea of freedom clashes with your own is worse than bad policy; it's a recipe for disaster and the ultimate failure of this political experiment in tolerance and freedom that we call the United States of America.