“The will of the people”: Those words fill me with such pride to be an American. The U.S. Constitution is the most astounding document even conceived. Its whole framework is centered around the “will of the people.”
I wrote about some of my issues with amending the Constitution to ban homosexual “marriage”, and I provided a link to an article written by two law professors that capture my thoughts exactly.
“Bush’s willful disregard for “will of the people”
When the framers drafted the Constitution in 1787, they were concerned about the division of power between the states and the federal government. Their solution was to allow Congress to legislate only on subjects that could not be adequately managed at the local level. Most ordinary legal matters were therefore reserved to the states.To this day, the laws that affect people’s personal lives — covering family relations, contracts, automobile accidents and probate — are handled by the states. This makes good sense, because people in different parts of the country take different approaches to law and government. The law of marriage (and divorce) is an excellent illustration, varying as it does from state to state on matters such as age of consent, community property, child custody and grounds for divorce.
The writers go on to say that Alaska and Hawaii amended their state constitutions to ban homosexual “marriage” after the courts appeared to be headed toward its legalization.
Clearly the authors are left-leaning. I don’t agree with their conclusion, but I do support their reasoning about why an amendment to the Constitution banning homosexual “marriage” is a bad idea.
I hope I’m not violating copyright laws, but I wanted to post one more paragraph, one I think is key to the discussion:
Nonetheless, Bush holds out the option of amending the Constitution in a way that would abolish the states’ rights to define their marriage laws. Such an extreme breach of federalism is virtually unprecedented. Several previous amendments have restricted the states, but only to guarantee such basic human rights as voting and to abolish slavery.
Those who support a federal amendment to ban “marriage” between two men or two women fear that some states may allow such unions. I fear it may happen. But I don’t want fear to be the rationale for usurping states’ rights.
Just think about Roe v. Wade. In 1973, the Supreme Court did just that. By judicial fiat, without consent or vote, seven judges–seven people! — decided, based on shoddy reasoning, that a woman had a right to kill her baby! And it’s still law of the land.
As a Christian who believes life begins at conception, I hate the whole flimsy opinion. The second biggest reason people hated Roe (murder of the innocent being the first) was that it took away the states’ rights to regulate abortion. Do we want an amendment to take away the rights of the states to define marriage?
When it comes to perversion, my answer is a resounding, “Yes!” But the federal government can’t arbitrarily decide that marriage is “different.” Whether I agree with the will of the people to allow such legal “marriages” or not, doesn’t living under a constitutional republic permit them to do so?
Share your insights.
