Replies

Thanks GE.

I think our difference rests on what institution is more fear-worthy adorned with additional power -- the Federal govenment with a clear framework enshrined in the Constitution vs. a renegade judiciary within which a single judge with an agenda may impose a whim on the rest of us.

Both troubling for their own reasons, but I'll take a clearly-worded, easily understood, uniform amendment over the mood of a judge ten times out of ten.

Actually, if you read the text of the amendment, it appears to be geared toward federal/federalist concerns. The second sentence reads like it may leave the door open for states to create other benefit sytems, but that no other states would be subject to litigation should such a scheme exist elsewhere in the Union. What do you think?

"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."

I think our difference rests on what institution is more fear-worthy adorned with additional power
You may be correct on this point. Personally, I don't see that any federal judge currently has a Constitutional basis to even make a ruling on marriage. However, as of late, little details like Constitutional authority hasn't seemed to stand in their way - so you may have a point there.
The text seems to me to prohibit any state from having any institution that would confer any benefits of marriage, no matter what it is called.
Again, although I believe it to be detestable, I don't want the federal government having a "toe hold" on marriage. No matter how limited the wording may be, once you give them any say-so, they take what they want.
The second amendment is a classic case. the Constitution actually reads "Congress shall pass no law...". The Danbury (sp?) Baptist association expressed the same fears about the second amendment and the very words that Jefferson used to assure them that their fears would not come true are now being used as though they were in the Constitution. We have arrived at the point that simply posting a copy of the 10 commandments is the same as Congress passing a law. No sir, for me at least, the Federal judiciary has proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that it can not be trusted.
If clause stating the right to keep and bear arms was "interpreted" the same as the "establishment" clause is, then the Federal Government would be required to purchase everyone a fully automatic weapon and require that everyone carry it.
Just my humble opinion.

Cordially,
GE