| I have written in support of a federal "marriage amendment" on my blog, here and here. |
- In the first link I say, "As a Libertarian, I oppose all government laws regarding marriage." In a world in which politicians keep their oath to "support the Constitution," a "marriage amendment" would be unnecessary.
- The second link explains why I believe that more rights of more human beings would be trampled on by Washington D.C. without a marriage amendment than with it -- and this claim concedes for the sake of the argument that real rights (as described in the Declaration of Independence, not the Supreme Court) of homosexuals would be violated by a marriage amendment.
|
I respect the views of some Christian observers who are cynical about the virtue of the "Marriage Amendment":
I also respect those who argue that such an amendment is contrary to the Tenth Amendment:
See also my analysis of the Fourteenth Amendment.
But as I said, the rights of more human beings will be violated if "homosexual marriages" are imposed on America by "activist judges."
A Marriage Amendment that upholds "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" will lead to smaller government in the long-run, unless there is a complete breakdown of respect for the Rule of Law.