Replies

I must disagree with you.

This is EXACTLY the type of situation which calls for an amendment to the Constitution since the Supreme Court has demanded just that by construing the Constitution in the way they have. I agree with Frist that the SC overstepped their mandate, but the only permanent remedy the Congress (our voice) has in this type of case is Amendment.

I can think of no better issue for the Congress to spend their time, for on the integrity of the family our society hinges, and we can trace many of our country's recent troubles on its weakening over the past half century.

To borrow from SCOTUS, I concur in part and dissent in part with what you wrote. ;)

Yes, a Constitutional amendment is needed here, but no, SCOTUS did not overstep their mandate. Their mandate is to judge the constitutionality of laws based upon the text of the Constitution. I've seen many great arguments on FR in the last couple of days saying why homosexuality is wrong. However, none of these great arguments are ones that SCOTUS can apply. As I said, their rulings must spring from the text of the Constitution. None of the arguments presented against legalizing gay sex are based on the Constitution. In order for SCOTUS to rule in any other way, the Constitutional text must say that gay sex is not protected or that no right to privacy exists.

Some people here have opined that all we need are "a few, good, conservative justices to vote the right way". Be careful what you wish for; you might get it. Alan Dershowitz gave his fellow gun-hating, liberal friends the same warning about the 2nd Amendment...

"Foolish liberals... are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a safety hazard. They don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."
"The Conceptual Foundations of Anglo-American Jurisprudence in Religion and Reason," 62 TENN. L. REV. 759, 789 (1995).

Conservatives ought to show equal concern at conservative justices playing fast and loose with the Constitution. What we allow today, liberals will allow in the future. And as surely as night follows day, there will come again a Court with a liberal majority. We should be careful what rules we establish for their behavior.

I can think of no better issue for the Congress to spend their time, for on the integrity of the family our society hinges, and we can trace many of our country's recent troubles on its weakening over the past half century.

I agree that society hinges on the integrity of the family, but I wonder whether a Constitutional amendment will impact said integrity either way? Setting aside the fact that I don't think the state need sanction marriage at all (should be a function of the church), one cannot legislate morality and personal responsibility.

If your goal is to increase the level of personal responsibility within our society, I submit a more effective way to do so is to remove those mechanisms that allow IRresponsibility. Namely, the socialist programs that redistribute money and generally remove the consequences of one's actions. That's why I've repeatedly made the point on this thread that I see prescription drug coverage as far more important an issue than this proposed amendment.