|
Calling Current and Former State Officials
To Help Defend Marriage and Protect States' Rights!
Here is the opportunity:
Current and former state officials can help protect marriage and states' rights by e-mailing or faxing the chairman of a Senate subcommittee
that will be holding hearings on these issues. To be most effective, faxes or e-mails should be sent by close of business on September 3rd
if possible. Complete contact information, brief background, suggestions on what to say and a link to a sample letter are included in this
e-mail. Links to additional information are also included.
Summary of the problem:
Recent and expected court decisions and a provision of the U.S. Constitution could be used to force all states and their citizens to accept
the legalization of same sex marriage. Amending the Constitution is the only certain way to protect states' rights and to ensure that state
marriage laws continue to reflect the will of the majority of Americans who strongly oppose same sex marriage. A Senate subcommittee will
soon hold oversight hearings on what steps are required to preserve marriage in this country as the union of a man and a woman, including a
constitutional amendment. Some same sex marriage proponents argue that such an amendment would violate states rights. To counter these
arguments, it is essential that the subcommittee's hearing record include statements from as many current and retired state officials as
possible who recognize that the true threat to states rights on this issue comes from activist judges and not from an amendment.
Brief background on the issue:
The line of reasoning used by the majority of justices in the recent Supreme Court decision overturning Texas' anti-sodomy law,
Lawrence v Texas, and the application of a provision of the U.S. Constitution, the Full Faith and Credit Clause, could result in a
few un-elected, activist judges imposing same sex marriage on the citizens of all the states by judicial fiat. In his scathing dissenting
opinion on Lawrence, Justice Anthony Scalia charged that "…the court has taken sides in the culture war…" and "…has largely signed on
to the so-called homosexual agenda…" He noted that the ruling will result in a "massive disruption of the current social order…" and
concludes that it "…leaves on pretty shaky grounds state laws limiting marriage to opposite sex couples."
Many legal scholars agree, and now believe that the precedent set in this case could easily be extended by the majority to a "discovery" of
a constitutionally-protected right to same sex marriage as well.
• Existing laws would be trumped
Of course, such a ruling would trump all state laws regulating marriage and the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed in 1996.
Indeed, following the Lawrence decision, Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch concluded that the federal DOMA would not survive a
challenge before the Supreme Court and announced that he now "favored a constitutional amendment that basically establishes marriage as a
family institution between a male and a female so that we can continue to preserve our families-and not get families mixed up in
politics."
• The Full Faith and Credit threat
The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution is the other route by which states could be forced to recognize same sex marriage.
This clause basically requires that a contract that is legal in any state must be recognized as legal in all the states. The Supreme Court
of Massachusetts is widely expected to rule at any time that same sex marriages must be made legal in that state. Other test cases are
working their way through the courts in several other states as well. As soon as one state legalizes same sex marriage, litigation will
begin to use the Full Faith and Credit Clause to force all other states to also recognize them as legal.
The only certain way to prevent the use of either of these two paths to force same sex marriage on all the states - whether under the
reasoning of Lawrence or the command of the Full Faith and Credit Clause - is to amend the Constitution. Such an amendment has been
introduced in the House of Representatives and presently has 75 co-sponsors.
(Click here for a brief analysis of this proposed
amendment.) An amendment will be introduced in the Senate soon.
• Hearings to examine the problem
The Senate Judiciary's Constitution Subcommittee, chaired by Texas Senator John Cornyn, will be holding hearings the first week in September
on what is required to ensure that heterosexual marriage remains the law of the land. Click
here to read Senator Cronyn's floor statement announcing the
hearings.
Many supporters of legalizing same sex marriage are arguing that amending the Constitution to preserve marriage would violate states' rights.
At best, this is disingenuous. They know full well that if their legal strategy succeeds, the rights of the states and of the majority of
Americans to define the essential institution of marriage as only the union of a man and a woman will almost certainly be usurped by activist
judges who will impose same sex marriage on the country.
• The future of our society and the federal system is at stake
Over the millennia and across cultures, marriage between a man and a woman has proven to be critical to promoting strong and stable families
and to the continued health and vitality of societies. Both marriage and the family are already under increasing stress and we certainly
should not weaken them further by legalizing same sex marriage.
Certainly, if such a profound social change is to be made, it must only be done through the peoples' elected representatives and never by a
few un-elected judges. The threat that it could be imposed by judicial fiat is just another example of the continuing corrosion of our
federal system by activist judges who succumb to the temptation to "legislate from the bench." Limiting the power of the Court in this
critical area through an amendment would also be an important step by the people to take back their Constitution and re-establish the proper
separation of powers.
Our Website has more information and an extensive discussion of this
and related issues.
Suggested Action:
E-mail or fax your views to Senator Cornyn. TIME IS TOO SHORT TO SEND A LETTER BY REGULAR MAIL, WHICH IS IRRADIATED TO KILL POSSIBLE
ANTHRAX SPORES. THIS PRECAUTION RESULTS IN SEVERAL WEEKS DELAY IN MAIL DELIVERY. You can send faxes and e-mails at any time, but they
will be MOST EFFECTIVE if the Chairman receives them by close of business on September 3rd.
In your fax or e-mail we suggest that you express your opinion as strongly as possible that the biggest threat to states' rights in defining
and preserving marriage comes from activist judges who could impose their definition of marriage on all the states and not from a
constitutional amendment defining marriage. You should note that such an amendment, in fact, appears to be essential to insure that the
current definition of marriage supported by the majority of Americans continues to be the law of the land.
We also suggest that you thank him for holding these important hearings, identify your current or past state office, provide a complete
address and request that your letter be made part of the official hearing record. On our Web site we also provide a
sample letter you can copy and modify as appropriate.
Here is the contact information:
Subcommittee fax: 202-228-2281
E-mail (via his subcommittee staffer): Josh_Sandler@judiciary.senate.gov
You can use this address and salutation:
The Honorable John Cornyn, Chairman
Judiciary Subcommittee on The Constitution
139 DSOB
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman: |
