07 June 2006

What I don’t like about the Federal Marriage Amendment

The amendment is going to define marriage, for all fifty states, as between a man and a woman. As a Christian, I am behind that idea. But I’m a believer in states’ rights. I recognize two logically consistent truths: (1) according to the ethical standards in the Scriptures, homosexual acts are proscribed, which also then proscribes homosexual marriage; (2) in a federal republic which, in the case of ours, is a union of sovereign states, states are free to define things like marriage. The amendment seeks to define marriage for all fifty states. If, as proponents assert, the justification for the amendment is judicial activism, then the amendment ought simply to contain language to the effect that states, through their elected legislatures and not their judiciaries have the right to define marriage. (Note that this language also bars the U. S. Supreme Court from acting to legalize gay marriage.)

But since the judicial activism “legalizing” gay marriage is going on in the states, that’s properly where the constitutional amendments are needed.


Of course, now that the measure has been defeated it doesn't really matter. For now.

0 comments:

Search

Loading...

About Me

James Frank SolĂ­s
Former soldier (USA). Graduate-level educated. Married 22 years. Texas ex-patriate. Ruling elder in the Presbyterian Church in America.
View my complete profile

Blog Archive

Victory Caucus

The Victory Caucus

Capitalism

Christy Janssen Design

CJ Design