Who is Steve Farrell and, if it's not obvious, why should I pay
attention to what he writes?
RBS
>-Original Message-
>From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 3:13 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [ZION] Steve Farrell on the Marriage Amendment
>
>
>Many of you know that Steve Farrell and I are best
>friends. Best friends or
>not, we are somewhat divided over whether or not an
>amendment is the best
>way to defend traditional marriages. While Steve is in
>favor of a Marriage
>Amendment, I am in favor or protecting traditional
>marriages by limiting
>the jurisdiction of Federal Courts. Anyway, in the
>interest of balance
>, here is Steve Farrell's latest, taken from
>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/3/3/134302.shtml:
>
>Marriage & the Constitution: Time for an Amendment?
>
> Steve Farrell
> Wednesday, Mar. 03, 2004
>
>Do we need to amend the Constitution to defend the age
>old tradition of
>marriage? Professor Richard Wilkins, former Assistant
>to the Solicitor
>General of the United States, and the founder and
>managing director of
>Defend Marriage (a project of United Families
>International), believes so.
>
>A little over a week ago, he asked me to join Defend
>Marriage as their
>press director. I accepted; and why not? Is there a
>more vital cause? The
>traditional family is the transmission belt of the
>values of a free
>society. You know this. I know this. Our enemies know this.
>
>Destroy the family, and a nation is ripe for
>revolution. Let's not mince
>words. The family is key; and there are forces that
>would like to take the
>traditional family out, forever.
>
>We can't let them.
>
>Despite the settled belief that this is true, however,
>Wilkins notes, many
>are confused as to why the federal constitution needs
>to be amended to save
>marriage. "Isn't this an issue for the states?" they
>ask. "Won't this
>diminish the 'sacred nature' of the Constitution?"
>others wonder.
>
> "These are substantial concerns," he says.
>"However, these very
>concerns rather than suggesting that we 'leave the
>Constitution alone'
>now impose upon the people a duty to provide a
>constitutional definition
>for marriage.
>
> Unless the people clearly establish the
>constitutional meaning of
>marriage, the judges will do it for us and, in the
>process, erode the
>very idea of a written Constitution, expand judicial
>power and upset the
>vital balance of power established by the Framers of
>the United States
>Constitution."
>
>Good points. Professor Wilkins suggests we consider the
>following:
>
># Although it appears the Constitution was written to
>leave questions like
>marriage to the states, this has not stopped federal
>courts from intruding
>where the Constitution gives them no license to tread.
>The United States
>Supreme Court has decreed that states can not 'demean'
>any adult consensual
>sexual relationship.
>
>Lawrence v. Texas. This new rule nowhere supported by
>the text of the
>Constitution nor by the history, traditions or
>practices of the American
>people will shortly require all states in the nation
>to recognize any and
>all consensual sexual relationships as 'marriage.'
>
>The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in mandating
>homosexual
>'marriage,' merely applied the reasoning of the U.S.
>Supreme Court to its
>state constitution. The Mayor of San Francisco, in
>unilaterally issuing
>marriage licenses contrary to controlling California
>law, similarly relied
>upon the reasoning of Lawrence to defend the legality
>of his actions.
>
># Therefore, whatever the Constitution once provided,
>all rules related to
>marriage have now been subsumed by a 'constitutional
>analysis' previously
>unknown to the law. State legislatures, and the people
>they represent, no
>longer control the meaning of marriage or the hundreds
>and thousands of
>legal rules associated with marriage.
>
>All such questions, henceforth, will be governed by
>decisions of state and
>federal courts. And, in light of the expansive
>'constitutional analysis'
>adopted in Lawrence, those decisions will not be guided
>by either the words
>of the Constitution nor the traditions, history and
>actual practices of the
>American people. .
>
>"In light of the foregoing, anyone concerned about
>preserving the structure
>and content of the American Constitution should
>understand why the words
>'marriage' and 'constitutional amendment' need to be
>linked, to save the
>social viability of marriage, and integrity of the
>Constitution itself."
>
>He makes good sense. He continues:
>
>1. "A Constitutional amendment will restore the crucial
>understanding that
>American government operates under a written Constitution.
>
>"As Chief Justice John Marshall noted in the famous
>decision of Marbury v.
>Madison in 1803, America is governed by 'a written
>constitution' and the
>framers of the constitution contemplated that
>instrument as a rule for the
>government of court
