Protecting Marriage Throughout All Levels of Government
Today the United States Senate begins consideration of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would define marriage as between one man and one woman- thus elevating existing law beyond the reach of activist judges. As it has been widely reported, this effort lacks the necessary support of 2/3 of the Senate and is likely to fail. Fellow Virginian Chuck Colson (who today will be meeting with President Bush along with former VA GOP gubernatorial nominee Mark Early) explains the need for the amendment here. He says:
Unfortunately, a lot of politicians donâ€™t get it. They argue that we do not need a marriage amendment. If we want to keep marriage between one man and one womanâ€”which they say they doâ€”then all we have to do is pass state referenda. Nineteen states have already done so. So amending the U.S. Constitution is unnecessary. Well, these politicians apparently do not understand the inexorable logic of a series of cases that make it virtually certain that when state statutes barring gay â€œmarriageâ€ reach the Supreme Court, they will be struck down. Other politicians understand all too well, and when they claim that we do not need a marriage amendment, they are being disingenuous.
Let me explain the precedents that make it inevitable that the Court will uphold gay â€œmarriage.â€ In the 1992 case Casey v. Planned Parenthood, Justice Kennedy affirmed the right of abortion with a sweeping definition of liberty as the right of a person to determine for himself the meaning of life.
Many feared this definition could embrace anything. Soon enough, it did.
After an examination of some Supreme Court decisions Colson delves deeper into why the federal amendment is needed:
Now, what all of this means is that the Supreme Court, following its own precedents, will declare any law restricting the right of homosexuals to marry unconstitutional. The die is cast. An appeal is already coming up from a Nebraska case in which a judge threw out a statute banning gay â€œmarriageâ€ as unconstitutional. Within two years this will be at the Supreme Court, and the axe will fall.
Just as with Roe v. Wade, the Court will take away the statesâ€™ rights to legislate.
The time to act is now. Donâ€™t let politicians deceive you and tell you this is a state issue. The Supreme Court has already closed the door on that.
Colson is absolutely correct. While the battle to protect marriage in the states (including the VA Marriage Amendment) is extremely criticalâ€¦ ultimately the buck stops at the U.S Supreme Court. That is why the amendment being debated today and the never-ending effort to hold the White House and Senate in order to nominate strict constructionists to the Judiciary is so important.
Senator Allen is in favor of the federal Marriage Protection Amendment but I do not know where Senator Warner stands (although I can unfortunately guessâ€¦). His office has not yet responded to my email inquiries. PLEASE contact Senator Warnerâ€™s office today and let him know you believe marriage is between one man and one woman. You can do so here.
Now that the stakes are so clear, Iâ€™d like to offer a Marriage Carnival of What I Just Found (composed mostly of Townhall.com articles). Of course we will continue to have up-to-date coverage of Virginiaâ€™s efforts to protect marriage from radical redefinition with the Virginia Marriage Amendment this November.
- Liberal reactions to the marriage amendment are not deep
- Marriage and crime: The deadly connection
- Protecting marriage: The battle dawns
- If gays marry, churches could suffer
- Ignoring a danger to liberty
- Identity vs. action
- Marriage is about children [A good reminder that the push for same-sex "marriage" isn't the only issue affecting marriage today]
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Protecting Marriage Throughout All Levels of Government.
TrackBack URL for this entry: