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 any other branch of government, judges
>must adhere to the
>text of the Constitution and interpret and apply its
>terms consistently
>with the traditions, history and actual practices of
>the American people.
>Any other course, as Chief Justice Marshall noted in
>Marbury, 'would
>subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions.'
>
>     "Modern courts have dangerously ignored the
>teachings of Marbury.
>
>     "The 'constitutional analysis' announced by the
>Supreme Court in
>Lawrence tears judicial review away from the words of
>the document as well
>as the traditions, history and actual practices of the
>American people.
>
>     Many law professors and philosophers
>enthusiastically applaud the idea
>of a 'living Constitution;' a document that transcends
>words, definitions
>and the restrictive bonds of history and tradition. But
>a document as
>fluid, unfettered and free as the 'new Constitution'
>unveiled in Lawrence
>bears little resemblance to the Constitution that, for
>most of its 215-year
>history, has provided for the democratic, legislative
>resolution of most
>controversial moral and social debates.
>
>     "Under the 'new Constitution' announced in
>Lawrence, the more
>divisive, difficult and debatable the controversy, the
>more likely it is
>that a court  rather than a legislature  will settle
>the matter. That is
>not the Framer's Constitution. It is not what the
>written text demands. But
>it is what the courts have now decreed.
>
>     "Modern courts feel free to ignore or alter the
>text of the
>constitution at will. A constitutional amendment on
>marriage, by forcefully
>rejecting the judges' latest excursion from
>constitutional text and
>history, will forcibly  and properly  remind the
>judges that their role
>is to adjudicate, not legislate.
>
>     A constitutional amendment is necessary to revive
>the idea that is
>'the very foundation of all written constitutions;'
>that is, that the
>Constitution provides 'a rule for the government of
>courts, as well as of
>the legislature.' Marbury v. Madison (emphasis in original)."
>
>The courts need to be checked. He adds:
>
>     2. "A constitutional amendment will restore the
>proper balance of
>power between the judiciary and the representative
>branches of government.
>
>     "Under the 'new Constitution' drafted by the
>Supreme Court in
>Lawrence, state legislatures may no longer intrude upon
>'liberty interests'
>closely connected with an individual's own views
>regarding 'the meaning of
>life' and 'mystery of the universe.'
>
>     But if the definition of marriage (an
>understanding as old as time)
>violates constitutional strictures, what democratic
>judgments will the
>'mysteries of the universe' invalidate next? No one
>knows. The judges have
>given us a poem  a poem as vague, expansive or
>restrictive as the next
>metaphor or lyrical couplet favored by five members of
>the Supreme Court.
>
>     "Modern social activists (and too many judges)
>have either forgotten
>or chosen to ignore that most governmental decisions
>are not controlled
>(and can't be controlled) by the precise language of
>the Constitution. If
>the 'correct' answers to pressing questions are fairly
>debatable, those
>questions must be  indeed, can only be  resolved by
>legislative action."
>
>Professor Wilkins and Defend Marriage wants the power
>to return to the people:
>
>     "The expanding reach of American constitutional
>law has rendered the
>public increasingly oblivious to its role as the
>primary source of decision
>making power under the United States Constitution.
>
>     By inventing and enforcing 'rights' nowhere
>evident in the language of
>the Constitution or the history and traditions of the
>American people,
>lawyers, judges and law professors have slowly eroded
>democratic decision
>making, reducing or eliminating the people's popular
>control over an
>ever-expanding range of fairly debatable controversies.
>
>     "The Constitution was not drafted, nor was it
>intended, to turn over
>marriage and marital policy to the federal courts.
>Because the courts have
>now concluded otherwise, a constitutional amendment is
>needed to restore
>democratic balance.
>
>     Without a constitutional amendment, the Supreme
>Court  and not the
>people  ultimately will determine what marriage means.
>With all due
>respect to the Honorable Court, this is too important a
>decision to be made
>by five people in black robes."
>
>He concludes:
>
>     "The Founders did not explicitly put marriage in
>the Constitution. But
>the courts have. "By placing marriage in the
>Constitution, the judges have
>taken marriage out of the realm of representation and
>have placed in their
>court. By so doing, the judges have done violence to
>the very idea of a
>written Constitution, have eroded legislative power,
>and have significantly
>expanded their own power.
>
>     "A constitutional amendment is needed, not only to
>preserve marriage,
>but to restore constitutional order."
>
>I agree. We can't turn over the fate of the family to
>five folks in robes.
>Judicial tyranny is not for you and not for me. It's
>time to reign these
>judges in, and remind them that constitution's are set
>up to preserve the
>values of a society, not overthrow them.
>
>Sign the petition in support of a constitutional
>amendment to defend
>marriage by visiting www.defendmarriage.org
>
>Contact Steve at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>--
>Steven Montgomery
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Senior Editor, The Constitutional Banner Newsletter
>http://www.thecbn.net
>
>////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>//////////////////////
>///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
>///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html      ///
>////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>/////////////////////
--

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html      ///
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
--^----------------------------------------------------------------
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
--^----------------------------------------------------------------




Reply via email to