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 --^----------------------------------------------------------------