The Constitution is not a piece of super-legislation to be amended by factions, or even majorities, who, from time to time, don’t get what they want. Nor is it some type of referendum on moral or social or religious institutions or beliefs. It is a sacred legal document which defines the relationship between the Government and its sub-parts, and the Individual. It stands for broad enduring principles, not <EM>ad hoc</EM> pronouncements or proscriptions.<BR><BR>Free Speech. Due Process. Equal Protection. Trial by Jury. The Right to Bear Arms.<BR><BR>No Gay Marriage?<BR><BR>Come on.<BR><BR>It's inconsistent with the entire structure of the Constitution, which sets forth the limited powers of the Federal Government, and then places even further limitations on those powers by protecting the individual from the tyranny of the majority. So how would such an Amendment, "defining 'marriage'", fit into that structure?<BR><BR>It doesn’t.<BR><BR>If the Federal Government believes that it is so important to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, the appropriate place to do that would seem to be in the U.S. Tax Code. Marriage confers various legal benefits, some Federal, some State. If the Federal Government wants to "strengthen the institution of marriage", then it can choose to bestow Federal benefits as it sees fit.<BR><BR>I realize that this doesn’t solve the “problem” of allowing States to define marriage differently, but the system of Government which we live under is designed precisely to give such latitude to the States. (And, of course, it is this structure of Federalism or “States Rights” which some “conservatives” have been talking up, when it suits them, for years.) The definition of marriage is, in the first instance, a Religious matter. No Constitution or Law can change what Marriage is. But, to the extent marriage also confers legal status or benefits, this has always been an issue left to the province of the States.<BR><BR>Why should the people in Wyoming be able to tell the people in Florida what they can and can’t do with respect to their own citizens?<BR><BR>What if, over the next twenty years, sentiments change, and the majority of the country believes that homosexual marriage is good. Should they be able to tell the people of Wyoming that they are required to expand their definition of marriage to include gays?<BR><BR>What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. And times change. Which is precisely why the Constitution takes, and should continue to take, a flexible and ultimately neutral approach.<BR><BR>The second problem with the proposed Amendment is that it seems small-minded. It doesn’t seem to appeal to our nobler instincts. It doesn't seem motivated even by self-interest. But perhaps by fear, or in the worst case, spite.<BR><BR>The third and related problem is that it seems so short-sighted. While marriage, as noted, is defined in the first instance as a religious matter, ultimately no one can define marriage except for the two people who are engaged in it. If you think your marriage is weak, I doubt it’s because of anything that’s happening between a couple of gay people that you don’t even know and will likely never meet. The threats to a marriage, and to the institution of marriage generally, are infidelity, spousal abuse, child abuse, abuse of drugs and alcohol, teen pregnancy, loss of intimacy, career changes, tragedy, and divorce. If you think these threats are going to disappear simply by defining “marriage” nationally as the union between a man and a woman, you seem a little overly optimistic, at best.<BR><BR>It’s part of the same false illusion that we can continue to take the easy way out. Do a quick fix. Avoid focusing on the problem. It’s a scapegoat. Adopted by the very same people who are always preaching about “personal responsibility.” They want to tell you, in this case, that the problem is "out there" somewhere. With somebody else. Gays. TV. Culture. Activist judges. Society.<BR><BR>No one can define marriage except for the two people who are parties to it.<BR><BR>I don’t care whether gay people get married or not. That’s why it’s not a Political issue. It doesn’t affect me. It only affects them.<BR><BR>I should only vote for or against things that affect me.<BR><BR>And, in my opinion, you should generally do the same.<BR><BR><BR><BR>Stephen J. Herman, Esq.<BR><BR><SMALL>[Note - The views expressed on this political blog / blawg relating to gay marriage, Constitutional Law, and other issues are the personal observations of Steve Herman as a practicing attorney and are not intended to represent the views of Herman Herman Katz &amp; Cotlar, Herman Mathis, LTLA, LAJ, ATLA, AAJ, Public Justice, TLPJ, Loyola Law School, the Civil Justice Foundation, or any other organization.]</SMALL>