Last week I explained Ron Paul’s position on an abortion amendment. I then wrote a letter to the American Family Association informing them that they have misrepresented Ron Paul’s position on this issue in their Voter’s Guide.
On an unrelated note, Mitt Romney has just dropped out of the race. It looks like this race is over, but I say vote for the candidate you think is the best. YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN.
Now on to the topic at hand. RP is not in favor of legalizing gay marriage, but opposes the FMA. He explains himself very well in this article which I highly recommend reading. The Marriage Protection Act which RP co-sponsored was in fact signed into law by President Bush. (My fellow blogger recently pointed out that John McCain voted against this.) The MPA is another example of what I was talking about last week--using Article III, section 2 to limit the authority of the Supreme Court over an issue. (The MPA protects the Defense of Marriage Act from being struck down by the Supreme Court.) It reads:
On an unrelated note, Mitt Romney has just dropped out of the race. It looks like this race is over, but I say vote for the candidate you think is the best. YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN.
Now on to the topic at hand. RP is not in favor of legalizing gay marriage, but opposes the FMA. He explains himself very well in this article which I highly recommend reading. The Marriage Protection Act which RP co-sponsored was in fact signed into law by President Bush. (My fellow blogger recently pointed out that John McCain voted against this.) The MPA is another example of what I was talking about last week--using Article III, section 2 to limit the authority of the Supreme Court over an issue. (The MPA protects the Defense of Marriage Act from being struck down by the Supreme Court.) It reads:
No court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, section 1738C or this section.
I would also like to add more comments to this. According to wikipedia, ten states and the District of Columbia have adopted same-sex civil unions, domestic partnerships, or reciprocal beneficiary relationships. Only one, Massachusetts, has actual gay marriage. But there is essentially no difference. Any FMA which would ban gay “marriage” but not these other constructs (gay “marriage” by a different name) would be a lot of effort for so little.
I live in Ohio, which is a state that has banned any type of same-sex union. But the state of Ohio does offer its employees (at least where I work) same-sex domestic partner benefits, which contradicts our state marriage amendment. Since it is hard enough to get a state to comply with its own laws, it would seem impossible to get them to comply with federal law.
Since DOMA and MPA are now protecting the states from having to recognize another state's gay marriage, I agree with RP that we should concentrate our efforts on the state level.
Most people would say that there is nothing about marriage in the Constitution. I would dispute this. The seventh amendment makes reference to common law. This could be a reference to the common laws which were inherited by the U.S. from England and which, if not superseded by newer laws, would still be binding. Such laws include marriage laws. But I need to leave that discussion for a later time.
From a theological point of view, one should consider the consequences of defining marriage as monogamous only. How can you forbid something that God allowed of Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon? How can you not recognize it as legitimate if God did? I would never do it myself, but...
