'Way back in 1996, in a posting I made to an AOL forum about an issue that would help Bob Dole's sagging presidential campaign, I proposed that the Republicans introduce this amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
"The United States, and the Several States, recognize that the legal and moral contract of marriage may be established only between one man and one woman. Neither the United States, nor the Several States, will sanction nor recognize any form of marriage other than that entered into by one man and one woman."
Simple and succinct. Worthy of inclusion into the United States Constitution.
As the years have passed, I have become more convinced that the _only_ possible way to "preserve" the traditional concept of marriage, in the moral, legal, and contractual sense, will be to place it onto a pedestal which neither the courts nor legislatures can "reach". If such pre-emptive action is not taken, sooner or later, through judicial activism or overly-liberal, well-intentioned legislation, the left will succeed in toppling one of the last icons of the Judeo-Christian West.
Vermont has already made such "progress", prompted by a State Supreme Court decision ordering the legislature to "do something" -- which the legislators promptly _did_. That's why we have "civil unions" in Vermont today. In my own state of Connecticut, state court action may be unnecessary; the Connecticut state legislature is considering a "same-sex marriage" bill, and there's a good chance it may actually pass.
Again: conservatives must unite to take "pre-emptive" action _now_ to enshrine marriage as a traditional union between one man and one woman. If we are unwilling to do this, we _will_ face a time where the courts and legislatures seek to re-define it for us.
It's important to pass such an amendment before liberals succeed in changing the "marriage-view" of a sizeable portion of the American population. To draw an analogy using illegal immigration: fifty years ago, it would probably have been possible to change the Fourteenth Amendment to exclude citizenship to the newborns of non-citizens (i.e., illegals). Today, the thought of making such a change is [in my view] politically impossible - it would never be ratified by the requisite number of state legislatures.
And so it goes with a potential "Marriage Amendment". The Marriage Amendment could probably survive [a certainly bitter] debate in the Congress, and successfully emerge for ratification by the states. And enough states _would_ ratify it -- now -- so that it would become a part of the Constitution. But "put this issue off" for twenty or thirty more years -- by then, after which a number of states may already have "gay marriage" laws on the books, possibly even legalized polygamy -- and the bets will be off. Those would "preserve marriage" must speak with forceful actions now, or face the future prospect of forever holding their opinions to themselves.
Cheers!<br) - John
Leave the ceremonial / esoteric issues to the spiritual institutions.
Since the Left always claims to want their "separation of church and state," let's cram it down their throats for a change...