Replies

The FMA is a constitutional solution, so it is impossible to leave the constitution out of it.

It will require strict and significant constitutional process to pass. If it does pass, then it is a constitutional solution to a significant, rampant moral problem that will disallow activist judges from taking extra-constitutional means to thwart the federalism that otherwise would prevail through the states.

In opposing this issue, others use a lot of words to deter support of the amendment (and I understand the philosophical reasoning) like there is no real danger, "in the forseeable future", or that complete marital rights for gays is, "unlikely", or that we ought as a people to continue the debate on what, "priveleges and benefits that ought to be granted to same sex couples". Therefore, they argue, there is no need for a constitutional amendment.

Finally, there is this gem, some are claiming the amendment itself to be a "departure from the nation’s traditions and history.".

I'll tell you what is a departure, it is the movement to destroy traditional marriage and the traditional family which is the bedrock foundation of our society, and along with the foundational moral and religious principles that define it, represent the very reason we are free.

That is what is the true departure from our history and tradition, not the effort through use of the amendment process (which is enshrined in the constitution itself) to thwart that departure.

That amendment effort is a wholly constititional solution to that grave overriding issue. Unless it garners the necessary constitutional support, it cannot pass. If it does garner the support, it will pass...and in so doing will define that critical principle within the context of the constitution itself.

I will say this...it is sad that such a definition of something so intrinsic and fundamental is necessary. That is the real issue...but in todays world with such powerful lobby groups, with such abject activist judges, and with all the clamoring by the same for that which is immoral to be called good and moral...it has become necessary.

I support the FMA for those very significant reasons and because, as John Adams indicated,

""We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."- John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798

Make no mistake...it is the moral and religious people of this nation who will decide this issue. I pray that there are yet enough who are aware of the issues of the day, to get this amendment passed and thereby punctuate the truth and effecacy of the principle Adams voiced in 1798.

Just my opinion.

Thank you for a well reasoned argument. They are rare here. I disagree in a number of areas. To begin with I oppose this effort not only because I believe it to be unwarranted, but because it necessarily is preventing the Senate from addressing a host of issues far more important that this, including supplemental funding for the war in Iraq, movement to comprehensive immigration reform, 13 appropriation bills, and judicial nominations to name a few.

The Massachusetts courts struck down the same sex marriage ban because (in their opinion) it conflicted with the state's constitution. A remedy was written but cannot get through the legislature. The courts are not stopping it, the legislature feels it does not have enough popular support. That is clearly within the power of the people of Massachusetts to remedy.

But if in fact there is no danger to the definition of marriage, then are they not right? Two state amendments were struck down because they broadly included language not only barring gay marriage, but essentially any other such relationship. For various reasons to be found in the First and Fourteenth Amendments, that would never fly. There is no chance that a redefinition by an activist judge will survive an appeals court challenge as even the 9th Circuit agrees that a state has a legitimate interest in maintaining marriage for heterosexual couples.

Finally, there is this gem, some are claiming the amendment itself to be a "departure from the nation’s traditions and history.".

I suspect they would say that most of the amendments were designed to ensure that the rights of persons were not endangered by state or federal governments. This one is somewhat different in that respect, but I don't argue that because each amendment stands on its own and doesn't owe any explanation nor does it require any standard of similarity to any other.

I certainly don't disagree with that, but then we must also consider that marriage is under attack by the one million divorces each year and the fact that 10 million heterosexual couples are living outside of marriage. I really doubt that the 6,000 homosexual marriages in Massachusetts will ever come remotely close to these staggering statistics.

You are correct, it will do that. In addition though it will by definition cause a constitutional crisis in any state that it imposes traditional marriage on. If the courts in that state were correct in finding that the constitution was being violated, but the cure could not get through the legislature, the constitution of the state would remain as it was, while the federal government forced the state to operate outside of its constitution rather than remedying it.

Well written, but I don't want anyone to try and suggest that those who oppose it do not have the same degree of morality and religious beliefs as those who do.

Thanks again for the well written post.