100% legally WRONG.
I have been to the bar conferences where the lawyers and judges have calculated they can essentially eradicate the common law definition of marriage via rulings.
You don’t know what you are talking about because an amendment is codifying the common law definition of marriage as One man and One woman. This, under statutory interpritation principles gives it the broadest protection.
It is not a narrow construction issue.
Marriage is ALREADY a federal issue via taxation, inheritance and immigration.
The fact Fred Thompson is getting firmer about dissing the marriage issue only speaks to his other stances.
this is a dealbreaker litmus test.
Fred Thompson better speak for himself instead of these surrogages. Either he is for a marriage amendment or he should just stop wasting our time and go home.
#####Marriage is ALREADY a federal issue via taxation, inheritance and immigration.#####
And it’s already been declared a matter under federal jurisdiction in the Loving vs. Virginia 14th Amendment case. Combine Loving with Romer and Lawrence and we have the makings of a massive federal power grab on our hands.
Actually, I do know what I'm talking about. The /failure/ of a marriage amendment will mean that interpretation is on the table. Identify the 2/3rds of the legislatures that would vote for a marriage amendment. Not the states where the people have supported one man with one woman, but the state legislatures which will be voting on it.
At this time, you don't have the numbers to pass it. So, I'm sorry, but this dog don't hunt. It's a losing issue as an amendment. It /has/ to be dealt with on a voter amendment basis, not only to curtail the reach of the federal government, but also because at the ballot box, the voters will speak their minds, whereas their legislatures won't.