29 May Marriage Protection Amendment Would Solve the Problem of Judicial Activism
Marriage Protection Amendment Would Solve the Problem
of Judicial Activism
May 29 , 2008
Dear Friend of the Family,Carol Soleberg, President of UFI
We have analyzed the recent 172-page decision by the California Supreme Court which ruled marriage as we know it “unconstitutional.” That decision is unjustifiable on so many levels. If anything, the decision reminds us once again just why we need a U.S. constitutional amendment.
A federal consitutional amendment is the ultimate line of defense against the type of judicial activism we have recently seen on state levels. The statutory laws defining marriage – Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMA) — were insufficient against judicial activism, as evidenced by the current situations in California and in Iowa, where the state DOMA was declared unconstitutional in 2007. State marriage amendments are effective only as long as a challenge to the definition of marriage stays out of the federal court system.
A federal challenge to the definition of marriage could occur at anytime and probably will invoke the “full faith and credit clause” in an effort to force states to recognize same-sex “marriage” as it crosses state boundaries. The “full faith and credit” clause, found in Article IV of the U.S. Constitution, was included by the drafters of the Constitution as a means to recognize the diversity among the states. It states simply that the laws of one state must receive the respect and recognition of the sister states. No one knows how much deference the “full faith and credit” clause will be given in regard to same-sex “marriage,” but the legal challenges to other state laws are bound to be brought forward by “married” homosexual couples moving across the nation. A U.S. constitutional amendment would prevent any and all courts from redefining marriage.
You can take action today by lending your voice to a defense of marriage by helping us fight the California decision. Unchecked, the California decision will extend far beyond that state’s borders, and we must persuade the California Supreme Court to stay its decision so that the people can vote on a proposed marriage amendment in November.
We must also generate support for the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA), introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Congressman Paul Broun (Georgia, Republican).
The text of the MPA amendment reads:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.”
In order to amend the U.S. Constitution, passage of Congressman Broun’s bill must receive support from two-thirds of the members of the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives and ratification by three-fourths of the states.
Congressman Broun said: “Marriage as an institution exists solely between one man and one woman. Americans have traditionally recognized this definition as being the most beneficial arrangement for the creation of stable family structures and for the upbringing of children. In fact, Americans have repeatedly shown their preference for the traditional definition of one-man, one-woman marriage by passing state and federal laws or by amending state constitutions to preserve the traditional definition.”
Please contact your congressmen and urge them to support Congressman Brown’s proposed amendment. We must act quickly and decisively to protect marriage!
For more coverage on the latest developments in marriage, please see the following items:
VIDEO: Congressman Paul Broun’s Statement on California Supreme Court’s Ruling on Marriage
UFI Blog Coverage of California Supreme Court Decision
President United Families International