Traditional Values Coalition (TVC) Opposed to Marriage Protection Amendment

TVC ^ | 06.01.06 | Rev. Louis P. Sheldon

[Coleus]

Send Feed Back to the TVC  mail@traditionalvalues.org

 

Re: Opposition to S. J. Res. 1 the Marriage Protection Amendment Because of the Second Sentence

Dear Senator:

Traditional Values Coalition has always taken a strong position in supporting traditional marriage and opposing any statutory imitations of marriage designed to appease the homosexual lobby.   While Traditional Values Coalition supports the need for a federal constitutional amendment, because it is the only way to ensure that marriage between one man and one woman is protected, we strongly oppose S. J. Res. 1, the Marriage Protection Amendment, because of the second sentence.

The situation at this moment could be called a triumph of anti-federalism.  Not only do states not have an individual voice in this debate – one state, Massachusetts, has imposed homosexual marriage through the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution on the other 49 states.  Coverage of the marriage battle being fought across America often overlooks the corrupt nature of what happened in Massachusetts.  The citizens of Massachusetts had conducted a signature drive to put the marriage issue on the ballot for a commonwealth-wide referendum there.  Extra parliamentary and illegal maneuvers by the Massachusetts House Speaker Thomas Birmingham kept the legislature from conducting a vote to put the measure on the ballot.  Experts believe the legislature would have approved the measure had it ever been put to a vote, and the resulting public referendum would have resoundingly supported traditional marriage.

The refusal of one House leader to allow the vote in the legislature deprived the public of its voice in the debate in Massachusetts.   Furthermore, the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts took advantage of the delay to issue a decision which thwarted the will of the people and substituted, in its place, the will of a handful of liberal judges.

Homosexual activists had been advocating so-called civil unions because (a) they assumed marriage was years away from being a politically attainable goal and (b) because they felt civil unions would be the transitional step to the ultimate goal of homosexual marriage.  All of this brings us to two important points about the current version of the Marriage Protection Amendment now before the Senate.

First, the wording of the second sentence would allow for civil unions, domestic partnerships and any other innovative synonym for marriage. Matt Daniels, the Chairman of the Alliance for Marriage told Time Magazine in February, 2004, the amendment was written to preserve the right of states to enact civil unions.

“The amendment would limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, but it would not out-law civil unions, which Daniels believes should be available to all states,” the TIME article reported.

We understand the faulty argument that this is a political sop which must be thrown to some in order to win their vote.  But we also understand that this negates the impact of the first sentence.    Second, the homosexual leaders are right.   Civil unions are the stepping stone to full recognition of homosexual marriage.  Any reasonable person and even some federal judges would recognize that there is only a nominal difference between civil unions and marriage. 

We believe proponents of the amendment have settled for a rhetorical and superficial “victory” of form which will ultimately amount to a defeat in the important substance so necessary to defending traditional marriage.   Proponents have led the American people to believe that the MPA “fixes the problem” and “stops homosexual marriage” and its counterfeits.   Many have artfully avoided the discussion, which Mr. Daniels, to his credit honestly admits is about an amendment which is both pro-marriage and pro-civil unions. No polling question has ever been formulated to give Americans the choice which proponents of this amendment attempt to make for them.  If asked, to choose between traditional marriage and homosexual civil unions, most Americans would recognize this “distinction without a difference” gimmickry and reply neither.  We believe an amendment which is simple and clear about the uniqueness of marriage is what most Americans want and we encourage you to use your voice and your vote to bring forth an amendment which delivers marriage from those who would destroy it.

We believe a one sentence amendment, “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife,” which is simple and clear about the uniqueness of marriage, is what most Americans want, and we encourage you to use your voice and your vote to bring forth an amendment which delivers marriage from those who would destroy it. In theological circles, there is a saying that “on the far side of complexity lies simplicity.”  This is truly a case in which simplicity and directness are required.  Political maneuvering with a wink to our opponents or some attempt to finesse our differences with the homosexual lobby will reduce this debate to a confused state in which the truth becomes merely another opinion.

Please support a simple and clear amendment that fully protects marriage and withhold your support from the current amendment and anything else which is less.

Sincerely,

Rev. Louis P. Sheldon
Chairman

[Tim Long]

I tend to agree. I think it would be a waste to adopt an amendment that still allows civil unions. Not to mention that this is an insulting attempt to appease conservatives. Most of us are not worried about gays marrying while criminals pour over our border.

[SteveMcKing]

"Devil's in the details".... I think they may be right.

[MACVSOG68]

This is actually hilarious. The president is in political trouble and falls for this ludicrous attempt to impose federal control over an historical state responsibility. There is absolutely no threat to marriage in those states that limit it to a man and a woman; there is no threat to the Defense of Marriage Act which permits an exception to Article IV, but because some states may legalize marriage for nontraditional couples, we better stop that right now.

So now the radicals are weeping because the amendment doesn't completely outlaw homosexuality like most of them want.

Hilarious.

[driftdiver]

"So now the radicals are weeping because the amendment doesn't completely outlaw homosexuality like most of them want. "

Radicals?

Weeping?

The norm in society for marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. If you propose changing that then you are the radical.

Marriage does a lot more than gain 1 person the health benefits of the other. It provides a basis on which the rest of our culture rests. Destroy marriage and you destroy the culture. But then I'm guessing you alrady knew that.

The one thing you radicals have in common is that its all about you. My rights, my wants, my desires....theres never any thought to what is good for our country.

Which is ironic as the liberals use "the good of the many" as a guideline to further so many other agendas.

[MACVSOG68]

The norm in society for marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. If you propose changing that then you are the radical.

I don't propose changing it in my state. If it comes up I will vote to keep traditional marriage. But I don't care what Massachusetts does. And unless you live there, neither should you. To want the central government to cover our religious beliefs for us and make everyone believe is against our federalist government and is quite radical.

The one thing you radicals have in common is that its all about you. My rights, my wants, my desires....theres never any thought to what is good for our country.

Uh, I'm simply trying to let sleeping dogs lie. I don't want to get rid of our Constitutional Republic. I don't want to reduce a state's just powers to have to do something because of my personal beliefs. And you call me the radical? You tell me its all about me?

Which is ironic as the liberals use "the good of the many" as a guideline to further so many other agendas.

Which is exactly what you are trying to do with this ridiculous amendment...the good of the many.

[driftdiver]

"But I don't care what Massachusetts does. And unless you live there, neither should you. To want the central government to cover our religious beliefs for us and make everyone believe is against our federalist government and is quite radical."

nice turn around. The federal government is extremely abusive in its use of power. It should not be involved with marriage. Unfortunately the radicals have found loopholes in the constitution and are using one of those to try and force legalized marriage nationwide.

And yes you are radical although you pretend otherwise.

[madprof98]

Your profile indicates that you signed up in 2001, but you must have kept quiet for a good while. Lately, you're all over every topic dear to the heart of social conservatives, and in each case, you spout the standard liberal line: anti-God, pro-death, and, above all, pro-"sexual freedom." You have their talking points and their snotty tone down perfectly. What exactly are you trying to prove?

[MACVSOG68]

The federal government is extremely abusive in its use of power. It should not be involved with marriage.

I agree completely with the exception of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Unfortunately the radicals have found loopholes in the constitution and are using one of those to try and force legalized marriage nationwide.

Don't believe that. They have completely failed in every attempt. Every federal court that has looked at it concludes that states have compelling interests in maintaining traditional marriage between a man and a woman to promote procreation. The Ninth Circuit has ruled similarly. There is no chance that any circuit court will change that, and even less than no chance the USSC would concur. Lots of people want gay marriage, and if they want to do that in their state, fine.

And yes you are radical although you pretend otherwise.

Given the history of the Radical Republicans in the 1860s, I'll take that as a complement.

[TNLawyer]

BRAVO! I agree with you.. getting rid of gay marriage should be the first step, then we can go after outlawing divorce (except in cases of adultery and abuse) and criminalizing adultery. Once you divorce (for any reason), you can't get remarried. If we live like God wants us to, our country can do even greater things!

"i think the defense of marriage ammendment doesn't go far enough. i, like many, am deeply religious and believe we should protect the institute of marriage as a whole, not just against the gay agenda.

Divorce should be outlawed and anyone caught as an adulterer should face jail time, then and only then can i take the president or senate serious on this issue otherwise they are just playing politics."

[MACVSOG68]

Your profile indicates that you signed up in 2001, but you must have kept quiet for a good while.

No at all. I tend to post fairly regularly. I'm sure since you've spent so much time looking at my posting history, you have seen my interest in the immigration debate, the John Kerry lies, Terrorism, the War in Iraq, Politics in general, and a host of other issues.

I assume the three topics that have you in such a dither are the FMA, which I vehemently oppose, the Da Vinci code, which I enjoyed reading and therefore didn't realize that I could not so post, and one thread on the death of the Terri doctor, whom all the fundamentalists condemned to Hell. Were there any others that bothered you?

Lately, you're all over every topic dear to the heart of social conservatives, and in each case, you spout the standard liberal line: anti-God, pro-death, and, above all, pro-"sexual freedom."

So have the forum rules changed so that only those who are God fearing Christian "conservatives" can post? Are social conservatives infallible? If someone misstates something, but it fits in with the extremist views of some here, the misstatement cannot be addressed? Please tell me where I made any nonfactual statement. Please tell me where I made any pro-homosexual statement. Please tell me where I made any anti-God statement. Finally, please point me to any pro-death statements I made. I will correct any misstatements I have made.

You have their talking points and their snotty tone down perfectly.

Thank you, but given your post, and a few others, its clear I have no corner on the snotty market.

What exactly are you trying to prove?

That there is still a place on this forum for reasoned conservative debate...and intellectual discourse. You know. You make a statement, I challenge it with facts. I make a statement, you do the same. At the end, we agree to disagree, but have both provided food for thought for the thousands who lurk but do not post.

At the risk of offending you may I make a suggestion? If none of you ever respond to my posts, I won't get to spew all this leftist hatred you believe I have.

You take care.

[SuziQ]

There is absolutely no threat to marriage in those states that limit it to a man and a woman;

You don't think so? There are states in which Judges are nullifying the votes to limit marriage to one man and one woman. It WILL be taken to the Supremes. Anyone wanna risk that?

[MACVSOG68]

You don't think so? There are states in which Judges are nullifying the votes to limit marriage to one man and one woman. It WILL be taken to the Supremes. Anyone wanna risk that?

That is incorrect. No federal court case has invalidated a state law limiting marriage to heterosexuals. The law struck down in Nebraska which included marriage, was struck down for the remainder of the law prohibiting unspecified associations and as such violated the 1st and 14th Amendments of the Constitution. Every federal judge has recognized that a state has a compelling interests in promoting procreation, and therefore may discriminate in the area of "marriage".

[SuziQ]

Every federal judge has recognized that a state has a compelling interests in promoting procreation, and therefore may discriminate in the area of "marriage".

So far, perhaps, but frankly I don't like the possibility of this landing in the realm of some liberal judicial loose cannon.

[MACVSOG68]

So far, perhaps, but frankly I don't like the possibility of this landing in the realm of some liberal judicial loose cannon.

This concern could extend to a host of issues, not just marriage. But if marriage is ever endangered I would then assume that a constitutional amendment would be passed by Congress in less than a week, and ratified before sunset.

[blaquebyrd]

"Divorce should be outlawed and anyone caught as an adulterer should face jail time, then and only then can i take the president or senate serious on this issue otherwise they are just playing politics."

Whoa, slow down just a bit -- divorce should be outlawed? Jail time for adultery? We're killing fanatics in Afghanistan who share similar views. What's next Burqhas? I'm sorry but this is America and we don't need religious police telling us how we should live our personal lives. If that's the way you choose to live I support you 100% but the stay the hell out of my bedroom and I promise to stay out of yours. This is still the "Land of the Free".

[linda_22003]

"Once you divorce (for any reason), you can't get remarried. If we live like God wants us to, our country can do even greater things!"

Except for that pesky little constitutional detail about not making laws that ascribe to any one religion. Too bad about that.

[RogerFGay]

An Alternative to the Federal Marriage Amendment

[RogerFGay]

The Outrage in Outrage

An Alternative to the Federal Marriage Amendment

[little jeremiah]

rawdog is gone.

Do you really agree with him? Many people I know would be in jail. Why not just brand their foreheads? /sarc

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping.

If anyone has the offending second sentence handy, could you post it? I didn't see it in the article. Of course, civil unions are just a precourser for same sex marriage. If anyone says "I'm against same sex marriage but for civil unions" it's like saying "I'm against bestiality but sex with animals is okay".

If anyone wants on/off this pinglist, freepmail wagglebee and/or me.

BTW, rawdog is gone.

[Antoninus]

So now the radicals are weeping because the amendment doesn't completely outlaw homosexuality like most of them want.

Was Thomas Jefferson a radical? He signed a law making castration the punishment for sodomy...

[Antoninus]

I'm in favor of the amendment as writen. If states want to circumvent the spirit of the amendment and set up "domestic partnerships" that's on the voters of that particular state. I reckon the SCOTUS would have something to say about that as well. Hopefully, Ruth Vader Ginsburg will be retired by then and replaced with a conservative.

[gidget7]

"Lots of people want gay marriage, and if they want to do that in their state, fine."


Did you not read this part? "The situation at this moment could be called a triumph of anti-federalism. Not only do states not have an individual voice in this debate – one state, Massachusetts, has imposed homosexual marriage through the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution on the other 49 states. Coverage of the marriage battle being fought across America often overlooks the corrupt nature of what happened in Massachusetts. The citizens of Massachusetts had conducted a signature drive to put the marriage issue on the ballot for a commonwealth-wide referendum there. Extra parliamentary and illegal maneuvers by the Massachusetts House Speaker Thomas Birmingham kept the legislature from conducting a vote to put the measure on the ballot. Experts believe the legislature would have approved the measure had it ever been put to a vote, and the resulting public referendum would have resoundingly supported traditional marriage.

The refusal of one House leader to allow the vote in the legislature deprived the public of its voice in the debate in Massachusetts. Furthermore, the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts took advantage of the delay to issue a decision which thwarted the will of the people and substituted, in its place, the will of a handful of liberal judges. "


The USSC has been asked in the past to address this, (hopefully will be again now that the legislature has refused to put this on the ballot again) but they had refused. This state does not want homosexual marriage, and the court and homosexuals activists, as well as a lot of the legislature know that, which is why they refuse to allow it on the ballot. That is not states rights, that is usurping states rights. Likewise all states that have allowed civil unions, without allowing the states (citizens) to answer it on a ballot question. Anywhere it has been put to the voters, it has failed.

[MACVSOG68]

Falling behind in your reading....?

Was Thomas Jefferson a radical? He signed a law making castration the punishment for sodomy...

He also believed in slavery. I would submit that any today who believe in slavery would definitely be labeled a radical.

[Antoninus]

He also believed in slavery. I would submit that any today who believe in slavery would definitely be labeled a radical.

True enough. And people who believe that two guys are the moral equivalent of husband and wife will someday be seen as radical lunatics every bit as nutty as pro-slavery advocates.

As for Jefferson, I would say he was on the right track regarding sodomy. Given the sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church, the Foley scandal, the Gary Studds non-scandal-because-I'm-a-Democrat, the Barney Frank non-scandal-because-I'm-a-Democrat, and the incessant demands of the homo-left for access to other people's children, I would support summary castration for anyone convicted of pederasty.

[MACVSOG68]

Did you not read this part? "The situation at this moment could be called a triumph of anti-federalism. Not only do states not have an individual voice in this debate – one state, Massachusetts, has imposed homosexual marriage through the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution on the other 49 states.

I assume you have heard of the Defense of Marriage Act, (DOMA) which is the legislation that limits the FFC. There has been no successful challenge to DOMA yet.

The citizens of Massachusetts had conducted a signature drive to put the marriage issue on the ballot for a commonwealth-wide referendum there. Extra parliamentary and illegal maneuvers by the Massachusetts House Speaker Thomas Birmingham kept the legislature from conducting a vote to put the measure on the ballot. Experts believe the legislature would have approved the measure had it ever been put to a vote, and the resulting public referendum would have resoundingly supported traditional marriage.

Again, the legislative problems that exist in Massachusetts can be rectified if the voters so choose. In fact, I believe it is on the ballot next year. In any case, it involves only Massachusetts and no other state.

The refusal of one House leader to allow the vote in the legislature deprived the public of its voice in the debate in Massachusetts. Furthermore, the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts took advantage of the delay to issue a decision which thwarted the will of the people and substituted, in its place, the will of a handful of liberal judges. "

So whenever a state judiciary makes a decision that other states don't approve of, we need a US constitutional amendment? Sounds pretty anti-federalist to me.

The USSC has been asked in the past to address this, (hopefully will be again now that the legislature has refused to put this on the ballot again) but they had refused. This state does not want homosexual marriage, and the court and homosexuals activists, as well as a lot of the legislature know that, which is why they refuse to allow it on the ballot.

On what basis should the USSC become involved in a state case that does not involve either a rights issue or a state's violation of the US Constitution? To the best of my knowledge, neither of those is the case here.

That is not states rights, that is usurping states rights.

There's no such thing in our Constitution as states' rights.

Likewise all states that have allowed civil unions, without allowing the states (citizens) to answer it on a ballot question. Anywhere it has been put to the voters, it has failed.

Exactly my point. Even Massachusetts will ultimately ban such marriages, as will any state that puts it on the ballot.

[MACVSOG68]

True enough. And people who believe that two guys are the moral equivalent of husband and wife will someday be seen as radical lunatics every bit as nutty as pro-slavery advocates.

Don't know about that, but same sex marriage is not a winner in any state but Massachusetts, and that will change next year.

As for Jefferson, I would say he was on the right track regarding sodomy.

Well, that would certainly cut down on the population growth, since about 95% of married and unmarried heterosexual couples engage in it.

Given the sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church, the Foley scandal, the Gary Studds non-scandal-because-I'm-a-Democrat, the Barney Frank non-scandal-because-I'm-a-Democrat, and the incessant demands of the homo-left for access to other people's children, I would support summary castration for anyone convicted of pederasty.

Why just pederastry? How about all cases of sexual child abuse? Or do you consider sex with female children ok? In fact, that is a far greater problem in our society than male to male pedophelia.

[gidget7]

"On what basis should the USSC become involved in a state case that does not involve either a rights issue or a state's violation of the US Constitution?"


Exactly the point. The US constitution DOES guarantee for every state, to remain a Republic. MA legislators have violated the state constitution over and over again, have taken away the citizens right to a republic of the people, which is forbidden in the US constitution.

[gidget7]

"Don't know about that, but same sex marriage is not a winner in any state but Massachusetts, and that will change next year."



As far as I know, that has YET to be addressed by the legislature in MA, they have thus far NOT voted to allow it on the ballot. MA residents are waiting to see if they will reconvene and vote on it, but we aren't even sure they will allow the vote. A vote is required for it to be on the ballot, yet they allowed the session to end before a vote came, with a few saying they would reconvene to vote, we shall see. Many organizations are working hard and pouring money into the state to prevent that.

[MACVSOG68]

Exactly the point. The US constitution DOES guarantee for every state, to remain a Republic. MA legislators have violated the state constitution over and over again, have taken away the citizens right to a republic of the people, which is forbidden in the US constitution.

Incorrect. The people of Massachusetts have the ability to vote out any legislator with whom they disagree. Those legislators have not violated anything in the Massachusetts' Constitution. I'm not aware of any procedural action they have not been empowered to take. The solution is to either vote those legislators out or to vote for the upcoming constitutional amendment. The federal system of government in Massachusetts is alive and well.

[MACVSOG68]

As far as I know, that has YET to be addressed by the legislature in MA, they have thus far NOT voted to allow it on the ballot. MA residents are waiting to see if they will reconvene and vote on it, but we aren't even sure they will allow the vote.

The constitutional convention is, as I understand it, made up of legislators who are voted by the people. I do believe that eventually, likely next year, the amendment will clear the convention. But in any case, that is what is called for in the Massachusetts constitution. It is lawful, and although most in Massachusetts want it amended, they apparently don't want it bad enough to change the makeup of the legislature. This is how a republican form of government works.

As I understand it, the sticking issue appears to be a provision in the Massachusetts constitution that prohibits certain kinds of amendments. I would presume that would have been approved by the people of the state. There are several options available including removal of the sticky provision. In any case, it is certainly not fodder for a US constitutional amendment.

[Gelato]

....an historical state responsibility.

What about Utah?

[MACVSOG68]

What about Utah?

?

[Gelato]

I was just pointing out that states have not historically had the right to define marriage for themselves.

Congress forced Utah to abandon polygamy as a condition for statehood. Similarly, Arizona and New Mexico were specifically under federal requirement to define marriage as between a man and a woman. New Mexico's and Utah's constitutions cannot be changed to allow polygamy without congressional approval.

This means that the definition of marriage in the United States has historically been under federal jurisdiction. For anyone to say that Massachusetts now has the right to define marriage is contrary to, not consistent with, the traditional understanding of states' rights on this subject.

[MACVSOG68]

I was just pointing out that states have not historically had the right to define marriage for themselves.

We need to distinguish between a state and a territory. Congress could set any condition for statehood (which did not conflict with the Constitution) it wished, including the demand that polygamy be banned. Once a state, however, Utah could do what it wished, which it did when it banned polygamy, and it took the USSC to uphold the ban. Pre-statehood issues were no greater than those involving slavery, an issue that ultimately led to the Civil War. So powers the states had (guaranteed by the Constitution) could not be compared to powers the territories had guaranteed only by Congress.

Similarly, Arizona and New Mexico were specifically under federal requirement to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

I was not aware of that, and would appreciate a link. Nonetheless, once those territories became states, they no longer had any such requirement.

This means that the definition of marriage in the United States has historically been under federal jurisdiction.

Case by case only, and only involving territories. States have every right to determine anything that does not conflict with the Constitution.

For anyone to say that Massachusetts now has the right to define marriage is contrary to, not consistent with, the traditional understanding of states' rights on this subject.

First, states have no rights. Only persons have rights. Second, the Tenth Amendment ensures states have those powers not specifically retained by the federal government. Since every state has the authority over all family law issues within their state, I know of nothing that sets marriage apart from other family law issues. Hence states can define marriage.

[Gelato]

You're confusing two laws, the Morrill Act (1862) and the Enabling Act (1894). Under the Morrill Act, U.S. territories are prohibited from practicing polygamy. That was not the point I was raising.

I was referring to the Enabling Act, which made Utah's statehood conditional upon a rejection of polygamy. That is a condition that remains to this day. The state of Utah is expressly prohibited by federal law from allowing the practice polygamy.

The law specifies that should Utah choose a return to polygamy, its statehood will be revoked.

This imposition of federal jurisdiction over the definition of marriage is implicit to all states, by the wording of the Enabling Act. Utah is not singled out with a disadvantage here over a power that other states were allowed to possess. According to the Enabling Act, by agreeing to the conditions of statehood, Utah was brought to "equal footing with the original States." Therefore, Utah is not unique in its lack of power to define marriage. No state has that right.

[Gelato]

I was not aware of that, and would appreciate a link.

You won't find a better article than this one:

Wedlock amendment no breach of federalism

By Jordan Lorence
June 7, 2006


The proposed Marriage Protection Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not violate principles of federalism. The definition of marriage has never been left to the states.

    Some conservatives urge defeat of the amendment because, they say, the Constitution has traditionally left regulation of marriage to the states. But the proposed amendment does not address state power to regulate marriage; rather, it requires states to adopt a uniform definition of marriage of one man and one woman -- something Congress has imposed upon states seeking admission to the Union for 160 years.

    No concept of federalism has ever granted states the authority to define marriage any way they desire. Federalism only grants states the power to regulate marriage already defined as one man and one woman.

    For the first half-century of America's history governed by the U.S. Constitution, no one questioned this assumption that all states had to define marriage the same way. The question first arose in 1848, when Brigham Young and the Mormon polygamists of the Utah Territory sought statehood from Congress and insisted on their authority as a state to define legal marriage as including polygamy.

    Congress, however, refused to grant Utah statehood unless it banned polygamy in its state constitution. The Mormon-dominated territorial legislature of Utah objected to this condition for statehood for almost 50 years, triggering a great struggle between Congress and the citizens of Utah over state authority to redefine marriage, including several cases that came before the U.S. Supreme Court.(Utah finally gave up its demand for legalized polygamy and became a state in 1896).

    The Republican Party itself began as a party opposed to slavery and polygamy in the territories. In its first platform in 1856, the party saw no conflict with its positions on polygamy and state power to regulate marriage when it wrote that "it is both the right and the imperative duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism -- Polygamy, and Slavery."

    So, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and other like-minded conservatives are simply wrong when they oppose the proposed Marriage Protection Amendment because, as Mr. McCain said in 2004 on the floor of the Senate, it is "antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans," because "it usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed." In fact, the Republican Party began as a party supporting congressional authority to impose a uniform definition of marriage on the states, even on states that wanted to define marriage differently.

    The threat of state legalization of polygamy compelled Congress to require at least some states to ban polygamy in their state constitutions as a condition of statehood. Interestingly, Congress required some states not only to ban polygamy but also to prohibit any efforts to eliminate those polygamy bans without permission of Congress. They did not view this as a violation of the principle of federalism.

    For example, Congress required Arizona to ban polygamy in its constitution when the territory became a state in 1912, and the Arizona Constitution further states that "no future constitutional amendment shall be made which in any manner changes or abrogates this ordinance in whole or in part without the consent of Congress (Arizona Constitution, Article 20, section 13). Mr. McCain, take note: The actions of Congress toward your own state demonstrate that, historically, federalism did not bar Congress from imposing a uniform definition of marriage on the states.

    Additionally, the Utah and New Mexico constitutions state that their respective bans on polygamy cannot be repealed without the consent of Congress. Clearly, Congress saw no violation of federalism in ordering some states not to change a marriage definition provision of their state constitutions without the consent of the federal government. In other words, federalism does not empower states to redefine marriage.

    The Supreme Court has written approvingly of congressional authority to condition statehood on a territory's adoption of a definition of marriage as one man and one woman. In the 1885 decision of Murphy v. Ramsey, the U.S. Supreme Court stated, "certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate States of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization."

    The court's language may be flowery, but its point is clear. Congress has the constitutional authority to require states to adopt a uniform definition of marriage. This is a separate issue from the question answered by the principle of federalism, which presupposes states regulate marriage but gives them no authority to redefine it.

    Members of the House and Senate should vote in favor of the proposed Marriage Protection Amendment without concern they are violating a long-held understanding of federalism. Instead, they are fulfilling the historical understanding of Congress' role in the interplay of federalism and the definition of marriage.

    
    Jordan Lorence is senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund in Scottsdale, Ariz. In 2004, he argued the case before the California Supreme Court in which it invalidated the marriage licenses issued by San Francisco to same-sex couples. http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20060606-090944-4652r.htm

[EternalVigilance]

Pretty amazing.

Congress already has the power. All it needs is the political will to exercise it.

I still support the amendment, though.

The current crop of liberals in this country, both on the courts and outside them, needs things spelled out for them quite explicitly.

Even that isn't usually enough, but ya gotta try...

[Gelato]

Right. The need today for a federal marriage amendment is analogous to the prior need for the 14th Amendment: to make explicit that which was already implicit in the original Constitution.

Congress historically has exercised the power to define marriage, and has defined it as marriage between a man and a woman. It was only when Utah defined marriage as such in its constitution that it was finally admitted to the Union.

The only thing to debate now is the technical wording of an amendment. That's no small task, given the lessons learned from Supreme Court's twisting of the 14th Amendment all these years.

[EternalVigilance]

Yeah. It'd be so much simpler if we had judges who understood plain American English.

[Gelato]

Yeah. It'd be so much simpler if we had judges who understood plain American English.

No kidding. We certainly wouldn't be in this mess with Massachusetts, now, would we?

Do you think judges these days ever heard of the separation of powers?

[EternalVigilance]

Separation of powers? Hmph. The only separation of powers they seem to understand is them separating the Executive and the Legislative branches from their powers...

[MACVSOG68]

I was referring to the Enabling Act, which made Utah's statehood conditional upon a rejection of polygamy. That is a condition that remains to this day. The state of Utah is expressly prohibited by federal law from allowing the practice polygamy.

Since the Utah constitution contains the "forever banned" phrase in it, I don't think it will likely become an issue. However, if in fact Utah has a republican form of government as guaranteed, the people can modify their constitution as they choose as long as it does not conflict with the US Constitution. I would guess that if they did, the USSC would find that the law under which they were granted statehood gave the US authority to enforce it, as it could with respect to the land and mineral agreements contained in the legislation. As for revoking of statehood, I see nothing in the constitution that permits that by other than an amendment.

This imposition of federal jurisdiction over the definition of marriage is implicit to all states, by the wording of the Enabling Act. Utah is not singled out with a disadvantage here over a power that other states were allowed to possess.

That's quite a stretch. I can see Congress setting forth such legislation in accordance with the interstate commerce clause, but where is the need, since the issue seems covered by the DOMA?

According to the Enabling Act, by agreeing to the conditions of statehood, Utah was brought to "equal footing with the original States." Therefore, Utah is not unique in its lack of power to define marriage. No state has that right.

What federal legislation in that area applies to original states?

[MACVSOG68]

For example, Congress required Arizona to ban polygamy in its constitution when the territory became a state in 1912, and the Arizona Constitution further states that "no future constitutional amendment shall be made which in any manner changes or abrogates this ordinance in whole or in part without the consent of Congress (Arizona Constitution, Article 20, section 13). Mr. McCain, take note: The actions of Congress toward your own state demonstrate that, historically, federalism did not bar Congress from imposing a uniform definition of marriage on the states.

Interesting article. It would be an interesting case if in fact the people of the state decided to remove that statement from their constitution, and then subsequently to modify their laws on polygamy. My guess is that the principles of federalism guarantee them the right to do just that, especially since the original states have no such requirement. As I said in an earlier post, Congressional control over territories is not the same as that control over states. The author is betting against that.

No concept of federalism has ever granted states the authority to define marriage any way they desire. Federalism only grants states the power to regulate marriage already defined as one man and one woman.

The question is what is it that withholds from the states the authority to define marriage, not what grants states that power. Where in federal legislation or the Constitution is a state prevented from what Massachusetts has done? Enabling legislation for a specific state is one thing, and even that arguable, but the author seems to be extending that to all states. I miss his linkage, especially since he is still calling for a constitutional amendment. If states do not have the power to define marriage, why the need for an amendment?