I’ve been asked by a news organization to provide a sound bite about President Bush’s pledge to constitutionally ban homosexual “marriage.” While I oppose such “marriages”, I don’t think the Constitution should be amended to ban them.
I’m torn between prohibiting the states from allowing legal marriages between homosexuals, but at the same time wary of giving the federal government even more power over our lives.
An amendment to protect marriage would limit the power of the states. Is limiting the power of states to expand the definition of marriage worth more central government intrusion?
According to an ABC News poll, 55 percent of Americans say that same-sex marriages should not be legal, but 33 percent oppose amending the Constitution to protect marriage.
In his State of the Union speech last night, President Bush said this about protecting marriage:
A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under federal law as the union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states.Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people’s voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.
I agree with every word but still have reservations about an amendment.
What’s your view?
