On the Issue of Marriage: A Wash for Santorum?

One of the reasons why social conservatives are choosing Santorum over Paul in this Presidential primary is because of the marriage issue.  But most have failed to look carefully at the records of the two candidates and to take into consideration the Constitutional role of the President. 

Both Ron Paul and Rick Santorum support the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  DOMA does two things.  It limits the use of the word “marriage” in the United States Code to one man, one woman marriage.  Secondly, it prevents any state, which issues marriage licenses to gay couples, from forcing another state to recognize these licenses as valid.  Evidence of the support of DOMA by both candidates is very clear.  Santorum voted for it.  Ron Paul, though not in congress at the time it was voted on, said that he would have voted for it and he voted for the Marriage Protection Act (MPA)--a bill which would have protected DOMA from being struck down as unconstitutional by the federal courts by stripping the jurisdiction of the federal courts over that issue.

MPA was introduced into the House of Representatives by Congressman John Hostettler (R-IN) in 2003 and passed the House in September of 2004.  With the President (Bush) up for election that year, MPA had a real chance of becoming law.  But after passing the House, MPA was assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee and no further action was taken.  One reason why MPA may never have gotten out of committee was because one of it’s most powerful members was Arlen Specter, a gay marriage supporter.   Rick Santorum  endorsed and campaigned for Specter over a more conservative challenger, Pat Toomey.  But Ron Paul continued to cosponsor the Marriage Protection Act in every subsequent session of Congress, but no Senator, including Rick Santorum, ever introduced a companion bill.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.03313:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.01100:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.00724:

Ron Paul is also the author of the We the People Act, which is even stronger than MPA, making it an impeachable offense for any judge to strike down a state’s laws against gay marriage.  But Santorum has never supported anything like this.

Please take a minute to read Article V of the Constitution:

http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm#con5

The usual manner in which Constitutional Amendments are ratified is by passing with a 2/3 majority in both the House and Senate and ratification by ¾ of the state legislatures or conventions.  Another option is a Constitutional Convention, which has never been used except when the Constitution itself was created in the beginning.  But in no situation does the President have any power in the process of the adoption of a Constitutional Amendment. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Proposal

Why I am I saying all this?  What does this have to do with comparing Santorum and Paul on marriage?  Santorum voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) and Ron Paul voted against it.  Ron Paul sees no need to change the Constitution--the Framers, in his view, put everything in it that was needed in the beginning.  But from a practical standpoint, for this particular election, this does not matter--since it is not at all up to the President whether a Constitutional Amendment, such as FMA, is passed.  Similarly, the possible support of Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich of the FMA is basically a non-issue.  Gingrich actually missed the vote on both DOMA and FMA and Romney has flip-flopped on the issue of marriage.  Another important point is that, in contrast to legislation like DOMA and MPA, the adoption of a Constitutional Amendment is a real long shot.  It’s easy to support something (for political reasons only) that you know will probably not pass.  There is a question also in my mind about whether the FMA would actually even do any good--since the essential components of marriage could placed into legislation and called by a different name (such as civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc).  They are doing this already in Ohio, despite the fact that we passed a state marriage amendment just a few years ago.

And far as endorsements go, Ron Paul did endorse gay marriage supporter John Dennis.  But this is clearly no worse than Santorum’s endorsement of Specter.  At least Dennis was a fiscal conservative, but Specter was not conservative on any issue.

Conclusion

Though not perfect, Ron Paul is actually the best GOP candidate on the issue of marriage from the standpoint of a typical, “one man, one woman only” social conservative.  It is somewhat close, but even on his best issue, Santorum does not win.

The Right Way to Amend the Constitution, part 17

This is part seventeen of an ongoing series of articles containing my proposals for amendments to the Constitution. For someone who claims so fervently to be a “Constitutionalist”, how is it that I can be so eager to change the Constitution? Well, there are several reasons. For one thing, I believe that after the Bill of Rights, much damage was done by some of the amendments that were added and the legitimacy of some of their ratifications are questionable. Secondly, the Constitution has been violated so much that the necessity of further amendments is needed to resolve the resulting problems. But this should be done extremely cautiously. My amendments are extremely unlikely to ever be introduced, much less ratified, but hey, I can dream, can’t I?

Here is my seventeenth proposed amendment (subject to revision):

Section 1: Neither the United States nor any State shall bestow privileges, immunities, or protections of law contingent upon the sexual orientation, sexual behavior, or beliefs concerning sexuality of any Person.

Section 2: No funds shall be set aside by the United States or any State for the particular purpose of providing protection of law for persons contingent upon the sexual orientation, sexual behavior, or beliefs concerning sexuality of those persons.

Section 3: No law of the United States or of any State shall increase the penalty of a crime committed if such an increase is contingent upon the motives of the perpetrator in regards to sexual orientation, sexual behavior, or beliefs concerning sexuality.

Section 4: This article shall not be construed as affecting the rights and responsibilities that parents have over their children.

Section 5: This article shall not be construed as prohibiting laws against certain sexual behaviors.

Section 6: All laws of the United States and of the several States which violate the terms of this article are hereby null and void.

Commentary on this proposed amendment:

The Federal Marriage Amendment does not put an end to sexual orientation based hate crimes legislation, anti-discrimination laws, civil unions, legally recognized domestic partnerships, etc., but only legally recognized gay “marriage”. It defines marriage and there are dangers in this. Most people who support a Federal Marriage Amendment do so, not because they want homosexuals to be punished or to take away their rights as citizens, but because they don’t want the government to give them (or any other group of people) any special rights or special protections under the law. Why not just say this, then? A form of this could be passed as law into the U.S. Code, but then it wouldn’t apply to the States. A constitutional amendment would also be more permanent.

This amendment would also forbid governments from giving people incentives to marry (which causes more divorces) and would prevent those who chose neither to marry nor to engage in illicit sexual behavior from becoming second class citizens.

Click here to read the next article in this series.

3 States & 50 Days to Save Marriage

Preserve & Protect Marriage

In November, voters in three states (Arizona, California and Florida) will have the opportunity to amend their state constitutions to reaffirm that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Liberty Counsel is supporting efforts to pass the amendments in these states.

In Arizona and California, a constitutional amendment only needs 50% support in order to pass. However in Florida, any constitutional amendment must be passed by 60% of the electorate.

A. California’s Proposition 8: The Marriage Protection Amendment

Places into the California Constitution the same language that voters already passed by 61% of the vote in 2000. This is necessary to overturn an outrageous California Supreme Court decision that overturned Proposition 22.

The entire text of Proposition 8 is as follows:

"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California."

www.ProtectMarriage.com

B. Florida’s Amendment 2: The Marriage Protection Amendment

Current polling shows that the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment is favored by approximately 55% of Floridians. There is much work to be done there.

http://www.yes2marriage.org/

C. Arizona’ Proposition 102: The Marriage Protection Amendment

Like the amendments on the ballot of the other two states a “YES” vote prevents judges and politicians from redefining marriage and leaves marriage’s essential meaning in the hands of the people of Arizona.

Arizona is the only state whose voters have rejected a same-sex marriage ban. The 2006 rejection of Proposition 107 was widely attributed to provisions interpreted to prohibit government recognition of domestic partnerships and civil unions.

http://www.yesformarriage.com/

Some of the information provided here was gleaned from an email received from Liberty Counsel.

It is critical that all three amendments pass, especially the one in California because it has the greatest potential negative impact to spread and infect other states with the the toxic notion that marriage is not the exclusive right and privilege of the one-man, one-woman relationship.

Abortion: Horton Hears a Who (1970)

Hear Their Cry

Dr. Suess wrote a number of children stories. They are well known. One of his stories was made into a recent movie, “Horton Hears a Who.” It may still be playing in theaters or being rented in video stores.

I was shopping at the local Sam’s Club store and saw a movie, “Horton Hears a Who,” which I recently heard Lou Engle refer to this movie in a talk. I guess I thought I was buying the recent Jim Carrey movie, but it turned out to be a 1970’s made-for-TV movie, 26 minutes in length. It was the original movie telling this Dr. Suess’ “Horton Hears a Who” story. In checking on Amazon.com, the remake or 2008 version will be available in early December.

I did not see the 2008 version, but it is apparently based on the same Dr. Suess’s book. It runs 147 minutes, so I wonder how much more can be said than in the 1970 version.

What I found interesting was that probably unbeknownst to, Dr. Suess, or Theodor Seuss Geisel when he originally penned the children’s tale in the 1950s was that it is an illustration of the battle for life. Abortion was still very much illegal when the book was written.

THE STORY

Horton, was an elephant and the story’s main character. He was shown to be a shy, caring beast that protected the unseen little people, the Who. The adversaries included a kangaroo and a group of monkeys. They worked hard at making it difficult for Horton to protect the invisible Who people. You could draw a parallel between these key characters and the true Christians of the world, described as the Church, the innocent victims of abortion, the unwanted, unseen babies, and the activist judiciary, and their allies.

One way to interpret “Horton Hears the Who” is to consider Horton as symbolizing the Church. The Who are the pre-born babies in their mothers’ wombs. The mean spirited, hateful, ignorant kangaroo symbolizes the courts or judges, who unconstitutionally make rules and laws from the bench instead of interpreting and enforcing the peoples or Congressional legislation. The monkeys are the allies of the kangaroo and represent those people and groups committed to the false belief of evolution, which is so fundamental to the anti-God secular humanistic philosophy that so dominates the academic, media and entertainment elite in our society.

You can see definite parallels and analogies to the current crisis of life and death facing America since 1973.

THE INNOCENTS

When you stop and think of all the potential good many of the aborted babies could have provided and contributed to America these past thirty-five years – preachers, doctors, nurses, scientists, farmers, teachers, fireman, even attorneys and politicians, etc. it is staggering. Some of the results or cost to humanity of abortions are cures for diseases left undiscovered, insufficient workers in all industries permitting illegal aliens to fill some jobs,, scientific discoveries unmade, books that were never written, etc.

Frankly, we are less well off, no, we are worse off because we have allowed this atrocious and mass holocaust in America to continue for 35 years. Supreme Court Judge Anton Scalia once asked referring the gross injustice of abortion, “Where is the moral outrage?" Indeed, where is the moral outcry especially of the Church? We have allowed the United States to be polluted by the wholesale shedding of innocent blood. What America deserves is the judgment of God for this atrocity.

THE MONKEYS

The monkeys represent all the forces so dependent on the evolution lie to justify their immoral behavior and policies, including abortion. Evolution or Darwinism gives a basis for treating life as anything but sacred. The ultimate result of the false evolution theory is that taking a life does not really matter.

Horton could have remained silent, fearful and intimidated by the mean monkeys in the jungle - the enemies of life as exemplified by the American Civil Rights Union (ACLU), the feminist National Organization of Women (NOW), the murder-for-a-fee Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), the Marxist-inspired National Education Association (NEA), the extreme left-leaning Democratic Party, the liberal, ungodly churches like the United Church of Christ (of which Senator Barack Hussein Obama and his family were so long faithful members) and anti-God academia, media and the entertainment industries among an array, an army of pro-death proponents.

THE CHURCH

Well, like Horton, the Church universal and the individual true believers in Jesus Christ, must wake up and recognize, speak-up for, and do all they can to protect the unseen Who, the innocent babies. So far nearly 50 million, dictatorial Mao-like volumes of baby human beings have been annihilated. The Church must wake up and strengthen the things that remain. The kangaroo and the monkeys are the "gates of hell" that Jesus referred to in the Bible. Chapter 16 in the book of Matthew contains this passage, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

THE COURTS

One could consider the kangaroo in the movie as being the Supreme Court Justices and the baby kangaroo representing the lower courts. America has come under the tyranny of the courts. The Founders of America dealt with the tyranny of King George. We now must deal with the tyranny of activist courts that suppresses the people.

The courts have defined a new morality. They have unconstitutionally tried to legislate a new morality, which is actually the old immorality. Roe v. Wade to sanction murder. Lawrence v. Texas tries to reverse God’s law regarding homosexual behavior, declaring it to be no longer vile, immoral, unnatural, unhealthy and illegal. The Kelo decision permitted the unlawful acquisition of private property for the overall good of the commune. These sweeping, culture destroying decisions all of them are absolutely unconstitutional and are reprehensible.

THE VICTORY

In the end, the Who are saved thanks to the tenacity and perseverance of the saintly Horton. He overcomes vast and strong enemies. He seems to fighting the battle alone, but facilitates final victory – the recognition that the Who are people, too. Like Horton, the Church or the Body of Christ on earth, and conservative and value voters must engage in the world, we must become active and involved. We must listen to the cries of the innocents and push back the advancement of evil.

In the same state that hosted the deplorable Democratic National Convention, there is a ballot issue that Horton himself would support and the living Church should vehemently support. It is the Personhood Amendment. For the first time in America a state would declare what is fact, that life, a person, a who, begins at conception. That no matter how small a person may be, even if not visible – like babies in their mothers’ wombs – they are still a living, human being . . .

Passing the Personhood Amendment in Colorado and passing the Marriage Protection amendment in California, Arizona and in Florida this November would be a good start at turning this nation around. Like Horton, Church and conservatives need to wake up and listen to the Who, and the what is happening to the Who.

THE JUDGMENT

According to my friend and fellow-blogger, Sam, God's reaction to America's violation of His commands, most notably, legalizing murderous abortion and accepting and legalizing immoral homosexual behavior is judgment. 9/11 was a judgment of God on America. The change in weather patterns that produce such catastrophes as Katrina, out of control wildfires and floods are all part of God's judgment. Loss of national sovereignty through such things as the insidious North American Union, and entering into treaties such as the Law of the Sea and Kyoto are also part of the judgment of God. The primary purpose of these judgments is God's desire to see America repent from her evil waywardness.

There is also a cup of wrath that is being filled by our wanton and arrogant disregard of and refusal to follow Biblical principles and precepts. Please note when this cup is filled, the wrath of God will be poured out on our nation.

America’s failure, corporately and individually, to repent even in the face of judgment will surely lead to our ultimate demise as a nation. It seems that we are rapidly moving toward the eve of destruction.

THE CONCLUSION

So the next time you watch or read any version of this famous Dr. Suess book, think about it as being a metaphor or an allegory for life. It is a story for the ages and a story for all ages.

The abortion issue is one of the two greatest issues that America faces going into the November elections. Many would have us try to compromise on that issue. It is one issue where there cannot be compromise. It is a matter of life and death for the baby and for the mother. Additional meaning could be garnered from the movie if you consider it to be an allegory for life.

THE RATING

In my estimation this simple movie rates a ***** out of ***** for the powerful lesson that it lends itself to tell. One lesson is that perseverance in the midst of difficulties is an admirable characteristic. Another lesson is on the importance of listening even if no one else can or chooses to hear. The lesson of the importance of life and the fact that "a person is a person, no matter how small" is the ultimate lesson.

The movie is an excellent film for the whole family to enjoy. If the Jim Carrey version sticks to the basic story, it too should be best buy or rent . . .

California's Proposition 8 - Vote YES

"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California."

- Proposition 8

As often as I can I try to listen to the insightful American Family Association’s radio program AFA Report with Don Wildmon. On Tuesday part of the discussion involved the important ballot issue coming up in November in California. The wildly activist California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was legal effect in June, despite the fact that the majority of Californians several years ago voted by over 60% voted to protect the traditional definition of marriage.

The homosexual lobby, their advocates and supporters have incessantly pushed their agenda to the point now that we are on the brink of seeing the legalization of same-sex marriage.

Don Wildmon made the following observations on his radio show yesterday:

“California is a big dam holding back the flood waters, If the dam breaks, it floods the whole country.”

“If this (Proposition 8) fails in California, then the marriage laws that have been put on the books in state constitutions (27 states) . . . those are gone. . . and whether you like it or not homosexual“marriage” is going to be accepted from now on.

". . . Okay, we (Christian Founders and people) built this society. We came out of the Judeo-Christian perspective. We worked hard. Democracy could bloom with Judeo-Christian values. There are those who are bound and determined that they are going to tear all that down . . .

“Normally I don’t say things like this, I keep them to myself, because you can always be wrong. But, I am convinced that the outcome in California on Proposition 8 will influence America more than the presidential election . . . The most important election this year is in California with Proposition 8. If Proposition 8 is defeated . . . in California, I think basically the culture war is over and we (Christians & America) have lost . . . and Western Civilization, which came out of the mind of Christ is on its way to expire and we don’t know what it will be replaced with . . . if (Christianity) is not made illegal, there certainly will be persecution and prosecution, maybe not physically, but financially and in other ways . . . (We) will be discriminated against . . .”

The radical homosexual lobby and their leftist friends and supporters are pulling out all the stops on this one. They want to destroy traditional one-man, one-woman marriage. Take the radical elite on all levels of government in the state of California; the state’s Governor, the California Supreme Court, and California’s Congress continually defy the will of the majority of its citizens. They intend to ram same-sex marriage one way or another down the throats of the people of California and eventually on all of America.California is the place and the time to take a stand. See what lengths the homosexual activists and the destroyers of the sanctity of one-man, one-woman marriage will go to . . .

BALLOT PROPOSITION WORDING CHANGE

The original Proposition 8 language: Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

The rewording: Changes California Constitution to eliminate (the) right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Fiscal Impact: Over the next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact to state and local governments.

PROPOSITION PROPONENTS TO SUE OVER POLITICAL BALLOT LANGUAGE TINKERING

The LA Times reports: “Supporters of Proposition 8, the proposed state constitutional amendment that would ban [same-sex] marriage, said they would file suit today to block a change made by California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown to the language of the measure’s ballot title and summary.”

Isn’t Jerry Brown the former governor of California who himself is an extreme leftist? He has solidly aligned with the forces promoting same-sex marriage in defiance against the will of the majority of Californians. He apparently feels that he is above the law, he knows better than the people, and he intends to do all he can to defeat the ballot initiative.

The same-sex marriage advocates, who are desirous of destroying the sacredness and uniqueness of traditional one-man, one-woman marriage, even tried to prevent Proposition 8 from even appearing on the ballot despite overwhelming number of required signatures and meeting every deadline. They followed in the footsteps of the devious California Supreme Court, who decided to grant marriage licenses to same-sex “couples” despite request from many state attorney generals who requested that they stay the decision until after the ballot initiative was brought to the people in November. But no, they wickedly wantonly did what THEY wanted to do. This whole issue is tyranny of the few over the many. It is the blatant misuse of power.

TAKE ACTION

If you live in California vote for Proposition 8 and encourage your friends and neighbors to do so as well. If you have relatives living in California, encourage them to vote for Proposition 8. If you can financial support groups like www.ProtectMarriage.com

More on Ron Paul’s Positions Marriage

Since today is Valentine's Day, I decided to continue my discussion on Ron Paul's position on marriage.

Suppose two men were to put on tuxedos and have a ceremony in which they pledged themselves to each other. Ron Paul would not throw these two men in jail for this. They could call themselves “married” or “united” or whatever they would want. However, RP would not be in favor of issuing them marriage licenses or recognition of the relationship as a marriage in a court of law. He would not be in favor of encouraging sodomy, but would not be in favor of banning it either. (My source for this information is a video which can be obtained on his website.)

Having said this, one must keep in mind that RP is a strong believer in states’ rights. The federal courts, in his opinion, should have nothing to say in the matter. He opposed the Lawrence v Texas decision which struck down a Texas law banning sodomy.

When asked about “don’t ask don’t tell”, RP articulated his position on this quite well. He said that, in this country, it is unfortunate that people have begun to think that their rights come from being apart of a certain group. The real reason that you have your rights is that you are a person, not because you are gay, black, or a woman. RP went on to say that when homosexual behavior in military becomes disruptive, we need to deal with it. He also said that when heterosexual behavior in the military becomes disruptive, we need to deal with this also. (I think, for this reason, women and homosexuals should not be allowed in the military at all, but I don’t know what RP thinks about this.)

The most interesting position RP takes is that the government should not define marriage. His reasoning is that, only God should define it. If some judge were to misinterpret the law and construe a homosexual relationship as being a marriage, that judge would be an activist judge. The dictionary definition should be used and we shouldn’t have to redefine it into law. If we give government the power to redefine it, then we are saying that we have the right to say marriage is whatever we want it to be. This sets a bad precedent, in RP’s opinion. I’m not sure I agree, but I would like to learn more about this argument. This isn’t the first person that I have heard this from. (Michael Peroutka was.)

The Libertarian Party platform says that the Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage and therefore it should be repealed. But RP would disagree with this since he supported DOMA. The LP platform goes on to imply that basically every law there is that contains the concept of marriage or distinguishes gender should be abolished. While I agree that marriage should be a basically private covenant with which the government should rarely interfere and that 99% laws concerning marriage are unnecessary and manipulative, the LP platform clearly throws out the baby with the bath. We need to keep the traditional Biblical principles of marriage in our laws and get rid of the rest.

People of the Potomac: Stop the McCain Express!

Help Derail the McCain "Just Talk Conservative" Express

.

Voters in Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C. have a chance to stop or at least slow down the McCain "Straight Talk" Express, which could be better described as "Just Talk Conservative" Express.

.

There are two other candidates in the running for the GOP nomination, Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. It would be great if McCain was denied the nomination based on insufficient delegates going into the GOP National Convention.

.

Personally the social issues of life and traditional marriage protection are most important to me and many other conservative and true Chrstian and other Values Voters.

.

The following two questions were taken from the Values Voter Guide for 2008 Presidntial Candidates, which as recently compiled and released by FRC Action. See for yourself where the major candidates stand on these to moral issues:

.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research - Would you support, and continue President Bush's ban on the use of federal funds for research on Human embryonic stem cell lines created after August 2001?

Republicans:
Huckabee - Yes
McCain - No
Paul - No
Democrats:
Obama - No
Rodham-Clinton - No

.

Promoting Stronger Marriages - Do you support a U.S. constitutional amendment to define and protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman?

Republicans:

Huckabee - Yes

McCain - No

Paul - No

Democrats:

Obama - No

Rodham-Clinton - No

.

Governor Huckabee is not the perfect candidate by far. But he may be good enough to stop McCain from coasting to the Republican nomination. Huckabee is right on these two critical social issues, life and marriage. These are two very important reasons to vote for Huckabee and against McCain.

.

If the nomination is deadlocked going into the GOP Convention, then there is a good chance a real conservative will be nominated ahead of any of the current or recent candidates. This candidate would chanpion a real conservative position and provide a real contrast to either Obama or Rodham-Clinton. Right now McCain and the two Democrats are two sides of the same worn liberal coin.

Ron Paul’s Position on a Federal Marriage Amendment

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:

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...