A constitutional amendment defining marriage, in any way, would be wrong — an egregious example of government overreach.
It would be the moral equivalent of Sharia Law; just because it happens to support your religious ideals doesn’t change that fact.
Once you claim it is right to base laws on your religion, and apply those laws to people of different beliefs just because their behavior offends you, you are opening the door for those who have different or even adversarial beliefs to do the same to you.
Is that really a door you wish to open even wider?
Constitutions should only exist to prevent governments from infringing on individual liberty by limiting what government employees, rules and laws are permitted to do, not to give them more latitude to violate some minority.
To use the Constitution to make a political statement or to express your solidarity with religious beliefs is to abuse it.
Nowhere does the Constitution give government the authority to define, ration, or regulate marriage. This is another example of the overwhelming number of things that are not within governmental authority.
No one’s marriage needs the state as the third, and superior, spouse.
The lack of such an amendment isn’t forcing anyone to do anything, which would be wrong, but passing that amendment would result in forbidding others from doing something that doesn’t involve you; something purely voluntary and none of your business. Which is also wrong.
It doesn’t matter if you write a constitutional amendment to legalize the violation or marginalization of some individuals and their consensual relationships, it will still be wrong.
Chattel slavery used to be legal, too, as were FDR’s Japanese internment camps.
No law can make right something that is wrong — which, ironically, is the same argument the opponents of the new laws granting marriage freedom seem to be using.
This should make it obvious that right and wrong are separate from legal and illegal.
Aggressive violence and theft are the proper purview of laws; absolutely nothing else is or can ever be. Even if you consider something a sin you have no authority to outlaw it as long as it doesn’t violate the person or property of a third person — vices can never legitimately be crimes.
I find it sad that the idea of writing a new rule defining marriage in the state Constitution is so popular around the region. Whatever happened to being neighborly and keeping your nose out of other peoples’ business?
I guess only radicals such as myself still believe in that virtue.
Farwell’s Kent McManigal champions liberty. Contact him at: