Here is the text of the proposed Amendment (I think):
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ARTICLE
SECTION 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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If they eliminated the first sentence, and went with only this sentence: " 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 many more people would support this.
I certainly would. It's consistent with the principles of federalism, leave it to the states.
An outright ban is contrary to federalism. It's contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. It's contrary to the vision of the Founders.
I know, I know, people who want it will whine "but we need it to fend off activist judges."
Exactly the type of thing that makes me say that Conservatives no longer believe in limited government.
The second clause alone would prevent gays from going to gay-friendly states to get married and then going back to their home states and demanding "full faith and credit."
It would be an uncomfortable status, but better than continuing the destruction of the Constitution.
If people in a state want to completely outlaw gay marriage, but are stymied by activist judges, let them amend their own constitution.
This, by the way, is why I gave up my membership in the Federalist Society. Too many statists these days. Too many people who want the nannystate as long as it fosters their own agenda. |
