Federal Marriage Amendment Clarifies
Definition of Marriage in Constitution
In response to recent editorials claiming that the pending US Senate vote on a federal marriage amendment is a political ploy or that it’s not needed, let me be clear: a federal constitutional amendment to preserve marriage is needed now more than ever. Last month, a Georgia superior court judge defied the will of 76% of Georgia’s voters by concluding that their two yr-old ban on same-sex “marriage” violates their constitution. The federal marriage amendment would ensure that our political process will no longer be circumvented by judges on the issue of marriage, and that lawmaking will remain the responsibility of our citizen elected legislature.

Concerning our constitution and marriage, it doesn’t matter what same-sex activists “believe” about the two. What matters is the legality of constitutional limits and the definition of marriage . Contrary to the common same-sex activist diatribe about how our constitution doesn’t discriminate, our federal constitution already legally discriminates by setting limitations on who may run for office and it gives Congress the authority to establish rules for naturalization. Congress could lawfully constitutionalize similar limits already found in our law like preventing polygamous, underage, or same-sex marriages.  These examples of legal discrimination are also consistent with the stated purpose of our constitution which is “to promote the general welfare”. In addition to the major world religions, civil g overnment has supported one man one woman marriage. Social science had abundantly proven that on average, the complementary influence of a married mother and father it is the best environment in which to raise children, and society benefits greatly from encouraging that the standard.

We have come to the point that if we do not constitutionally clarify the definition of marriage, judges will continue to redefine it. The Netherlands experienced their first polygamous civil union in September 2005 and Reuters reported May 30 th that Dutch pedophiles are launching a political party to push for a cut in the legal age of sexual relations to 12 from 16. A Senate vote on the federal marriage amendment is possible as early as June 6 th.. Citizens need to tell Sens. Menendez and Lautenberg to vote for this amendment to preserve marriage for the sake of our children.

back to Editorials