Un-elected activist judges and elected politicians continue to ignore the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) that has been passed by the legislatures in 37 states that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The Massachusetts Supreme Court on November 17,2003 ruled 4-3 that homosexual couples have a constitutional â??rightâ? to marry- a “right” never recognized before in over 200 years since the Mass Constitution was drafted. Homosexual couples would have strong legal ground to go to any of the 13 states and District of Columbia that do not have DOMA to demand legal recognition of their â??marriage.â? The â??full faith and creditâ? clause of the Constitution requires states to recognize a compact made in another state if it does not conflict with their own laws. And in the 37 other states that have passed DOMA laws, homosexual couples could make the argument that these states would have to recognize their â??marriagesâ? under the â??equal protectionâ? clause of the U.S. Constitution.
A Federal DOMA (FMA) is the only viable way to ensure that activist courts and local officials respect the law. Because activist courts like the one in Massachusetts as well as local officials such as San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsome have flouted state marriage laws, a Federal Marriage Amendment (H.J. Res. 56) has been introduced into the House of Representatives and already has 96 co-sponsors and will be voted on in the Senate this week. The Amendment states: â??Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.â? States’ rights must be respected and recognized. However, when the laws of the individual states are routinely ignored and over-ridden by activist state courts who rule from the bench thereby usurping legislative authority of “the people,” the federal government is left with no other choice than to amend the Constitution of the United States. Such an amendment process is entirely constitutional and not as critics claim “anti-federalistic.”
Homosexual proponents of gay marriage want it both ways. It is ironic that the same people on the left who claim that homosexual marriage is a â??stateâ??s rights issueâ? are the same people that also claim that homosexual marriage is a â??civil rightâ? that no group of voters from any individual state can restrict. On one hand they claim that homosexual marriage is a statesâ?? rights issue while simultaneously asserting that it is a federal â??civil-rightsâ? issue protected by the (federal) U.S. Constitution. These same people assert that Roe v. Wade which legalized abortion nationwide was a womanâ??s constitutionally protected â??right of privacyâ? which no individual state could in any way restrict.
The bottom line is that, on the great contemporary social/moral issues it is the citizenry and their elected representatives who make the laws that govern the legal institution of marriage not uneliected appointed judges. When these same judges unilateraly violate the legally proscribed legislative process by over-riding the “will of the people” our elected federal representatives have every right to amend the federal constitution especially on as important an issue as the definition of marriage which is under direct assault by a diminutive minority.
Pass the FMA. Amend our constitution and protect marriage between one man and one women.