Posted on 06/07/2006 9:44:59 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
A Vote for Marriage
By The Editors
NATIONAL REVIEW
Most Americans oppose same-sex marriage. Almost all Republican politicians say they oppose it, and very few Democratic politicians say they support it. But the opponents are divided in a way that could cause them to lose.
Part of the problem is that some of the opponents are merely professed opponents, not real ones. These are politicians, typically Democrats, who know that the public opposes same-sex marriage but that most liberals favor it. They may, secretly, agree with these liberals themselves. Their strategy has three components: Let the courts impose same-sex marriage on the populace. Claim to be opposed to it. But also oppose any action that would stop the courts from imposing it.
This faction is aided by another: sincere opponents of same-sex marriage who object to a constitutional amendment to ban it. These people believe that states should be free to set their own marriage policies, or that no amendment is necessary, or that the Constitution should not concern itself with marriage policy. People who hold these views should reconsider them, because they may be making a terrible mistake.
Voters in many states have passed referenda to prohibit same-sex marriage, often adding that prohibition to their state constitutions. (Nineteen states have constitutional amendments against same-sex marriage, and an additional 26 have statutes.) But their votes may not ultimately prove decisive. A state court has already imposed same-sex marriage on Massachusetts, and several other states’ courts are poised to do the same thing. Federal litigation designed to accomplish the same objective is underway. Assembling the supermajorities necessary to undo such anti-democratic actions may prove impossible once the deeds are done. (It is no accident that liberal litigators began the campaign for same-sex marriage in two states, Vermont and Massachusetts, where it is relatively hard for voters to amend the constitution.)
States should perform those functions that they can perform. But no state is capable of resisting the federal judiciary if it imposes same-sex marriage. Only an amendment to the U.S. Constitution can protect states from having same-sex marriage foisted upon them by courts.
When the Constitution is amended the old-fashioned way—through the procedures outlined in its fifth article, with a two-thirds vote in each chamber of Congress followed by ratification by three quarters of the states—it almost always reflects a national consensus. An amendment is not an action unilaterally undertaken by the federal government and forced on the states; the states participate in the process. So the federalist objection to a marriage amendment is doubly misguided. Individual states cannot accomplish the good that the amendment seeks, and as a practical matter are unlikely to be oppressed by it.
The leading criticism of the Federal Marriage Amendment is not, however, that it is inconsistent with states’ rights. It is that it would “write discrimination into the Constitution.” We have not addressed that objection because the people we have in mind already know that marriage, and its requirement of sexual complementarity, are not discriminatory. But it is nonetheless worth keeping in mind that this claim of discrimination is being made, and that many people, especially in the legal academy, believe it. If the Federal Marriage Amendment is discriminatory, it can only be because traditional marriage laws are discriminatory—and if that is the case, then it should not take much more argument to get the federal courts to step in. The premises for the federal courts to impose same-sex marriage are being put in place.
The Federal Marriage Amendment is necessary to ward off this danger. We hope it passes in time.
Before an amendment could become part of the constitution, it would have to be approved by four-fifths of the states. Hardly an invasion of "states rights." What would be, as others have pointed out, is that the gays are trying to use the full faith and credit clause to compel the states to accept gay marriage whether they like it or not. Right now this is more likely than the marriage amendment.
What? For a micro second I thought I was on DU...
YUP -the American public is increasingly progressive...
ROTFLMAO
And the dummicrats are increasingly relevent AND by losing they win...
Unless I am mistaken 38 or 39 states have already passed legislation against same-sex marriage, which represents the will of the people of those states. Additionally the Defense of Marriage Act, passed by Congress provides for a legal definition of marriage and allows each state to deny Constitutional marital rights between persons of the same sex which have been recognized in another state. Therefore, why should we amend the Constitution ? This is no longer a social issue, but a political issue for both parties.
And I thought conservatism mean laissez faire attitudes towards the states and the rights of each state to develop laws that met the needs and requirements of the electorate of that state. From what all the respondents here say, it sounds like the Republican Party is moving to the left, and that is not conservatism.
You observe the obvious reality of what is happening while ignoring same in regards to why it is happening and as such the solution necessary to stop the assault being waged on the public by a tyrannical terrorist like judiciary...
This in addition to not understanding just what the proposed Constitutional Amendment would or would not prohibit. Arguing against the Constitutional Amendment is not arguing for "State's Rights" as dictated by the people -plain and simple, it is arguing for the rights of an activist judiciary to maintain the ability to negate the will of the people on this one specific issue...
A reading of the proposed Amendment shows clearly it ONLY bans activist judges...
A legitimate understanding of the Amendment hinges principally on one word, "construe", which one should assume was chosen specifically and intentionally I would disagree with any assessment suggesting a banning when the freedom of the legislature is maintained.
ARTICLESECTION 1. This article may be cited as the ‘Marriage Protection Amendment’.
SECTION 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.’’.
CONSTRUE: To adduce or explain the meaning of; interpret...
The Amendment simply removes a judicial ability to construe a marital construct and leaves open the question legislatively at both federal and state levels...
Exactly. The idea of "protecting" marriage with at the federal level is nothing more than an election year ploy. If it wasn't for government sticking its nose into marriage in the first place, this wouldn't even be an issue. 
The federal government has not a single thing to say about marriage.
It is totally the province of the states.
If a state decides there is no such thing as "Gay Marriage", then anything that happens WITHIN THAT STATE is ruled accordingly.
No state can be made liable for another states decision.
Sociologists and anthropologists have maintained that a strong family and marriage institution is essential for the survival of a society.
True.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.