Tonight I ran across a well thought out and articulate post in opposition to a marriage amendment. The post comes from a contributor to the Federalist Society's Blog at Washington and Lee Law School. I am not sure who the author of this post is, but the post was made under the screen name "Lefty." Of course, "lefty" must be read in the context of the Federalist Society. Follow this link to read the post before reading my response below.
My response to Lefty: Lefty's argument goes to policy and ignores the central, constitutional issue. As it stands now, rogue federal judges are free to declare that state laws restricting marriage to one man and one woman are unconstitutional. In other words, those judges can declare that the traditional view of marriage actually violates the Consitution. At this point, it seems that a constitutional amendment is the only way to assure that states would be able to maintain marriage as an institution between one man and one woman. A marriage amendment to the constitution would not prohibit any state from implementing the property and child custody policies that Lefty advocates. States are free to pass such laws now and would continue to have that freedom regardless of an addition of a marriage definition to the Constitution.
