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
grin, 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 courts, as well as of the legislature.
(Emphasis by Justice
Marshall.)
Because America operates under a written Constitution
that is as binding on
the courts as on
