Marriage Amendment Could Soothe Angry Right
By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos
WASHINGTON — With Republicans facing a potential backlash at the polls in November, a renewed national debate over gay marriage can only boost the morale of the party’s religious conservative base, which for a variety of reasons is near mutiny, say sources in the movement.
“It could be an issue that may not necessarily bring them back, but it will bring them out, which is the key thing for the fall elections,” said Bill Greene, head of RightMarch.com, an Atlanta-based conservative activist organization.
He described the Republicans’ conservative base as “pretty ticked off” over the way GOP senators have handled illegal immigration reform, the budget and President Bush’s judicial nominations, many of whom are still stalled in the Senate. But Greene said a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage “may be one prong of a multifaceted attempt at re-energizing the base.”
On May 19, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the Federal Marriage Amendment. And the Associated Press reported Thursday that Bush will lend support to the amendment in an announcement Monday.
As much as I agree with most Americans that the ultimate definition of marriage should be a union between a man and a woman only, a constitutional amendment is not needed to regulate an issue which I believe, clearly lies with the states.
Republican leadership and the Bush Administration, attempting to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage, has turned the constitution into a catalyst for social change, something I fear could be harmful to our republic in the long run. I believe the proper place for such social change, like the definition of marriage, lies squarely on the shoulders of the states or the people. The attempt to socialize the constitution, in my opinion, is a cheap trick designed to win votes in the November election, a short term priority for the Republican Party. Passing an amendment to the constitution and changing the basis of our laws altogether is a permanent action, an action that will forever change legislation and hamper the struggle to renew states rights.
Using the constitution as a catalyst for social change cheapens the respect it deserves and shows that officials in our federal government have no respect for a once thriving federalism, but only care about the power of the central government in Washington.
June 2nd, 2006 at 3:35 pm
The reason such an amendment is necessary is because of activist judges who have ruled against majority voters in various states, who over ruled state constitutional marriage amendments and invalidate them, who ruled that a marriage which has been validated in one state must also be valid in all states; that’s why this must be added at the national level.
June 2nd, 2006 at 8:11 pm
Though I agree with you on conservative grounds (ie - activist judges, etc.) didn’t the Congress and former President Clinton sign the Defense of Marriage Act back in the 90’s? That act allowed the states to decide for themselves whether or not to honor other states’ definition of marriage. For example, Texas does not have to honor a gay marriage from Massachusetts. Also, the thing people don’t read very often is that many of the judges that overturned state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage overturned them on procedural and technical grounds. Thus was the case in Georgia I believe.
Federalism offers the answer to social issues that come and go in the wind. If we allow ourselves to amend the constitution everytime there is a new social movement, the basis of our republic will become as fluid as the money supply. The answer to the gay marriage fiasco lies with the states, we don’t need the federal government getting involved in yet another state issue…Washington has already abused and usurped its constitutional authority for countless decades.