Missouri's 7th District, U.S. House of Representatives




Congressional Issues 2014
Marriage Amendment

Marriage was created by God, not "the government."
Government has a duty to acknowledge what God has ordained. Government has a duty to follow "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." Every single person who signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution believed that homosexuality was contrary to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," and that two (or more) people of the same gender could not constitute a valid "marriage." The Framers of the Constitution did not intend that instrument to confer a "right" to "homosexual marriage."
Therefore no amendment to the Constitution should be necessary to protect God's definition of Marriage.

But too many federal judges do not respect the Constitution. An amendment might force rogue judges to stop their attack on democratically-amended state constitutions and legislation which is consistent with God's definition of Marriage. It's worth a try.

It's worth a try because any government which does not acknowledge itself to be "under God" is a government that thinks it  is  God. A government that thinks it is God is the most dangerous entity on the planet.

Ron Paul was Wrong

Having studied this issue and consulted with leading legal scholars, including an attorney who helped defend the Boy Scouts against attempts to force the organization to allow gay men to serve as scoutmasters, I am convinced that both the Defense of Marriage Act and the Marriage Protection Act can survive legal challenges and ensure that no state is forced by a federal court's or another state's actions to recognize same sex marriage. Therefore, while I am sympathetic to those who feel only a constitutional amendment will sufficiently address this issue, I respectfully disagree.
The Federal Marriage Amendment Is a Very Bad Idea | Ron Paul

The Supreme Court has already ruled in precisely the way Ron Paul didn't think it could. Ron Paul, it turns out, is just too optimistic about government. He needs to be a little more cynical.

3. This is not just about marriage.

Redefining marriage policy is about more than just creating same-sex marriage – it is about deconstructing the role and nature of marriage in our society.

It’s about marginalizing the Christian sexual ethic and enforcing a new sexual morality. Those who disagree with this new morality are first marginalized, then punished. We’re already seeing this happen with the city of Houston issuing subpoenas for pastors’ communications, the ousting of Mozilla CEO Brandon Eich, and attacks on Christian business people, like Rob and Cynthia Gifford of Liberty Ridge Farm, Jim and Mary O’Reilly of Wildflower Inn, Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cake Shop, Barronelle Stutzman of Arlene’s Flowers, Blaine Adamson of Hands on Originals, Elaine and Jon Huguenin of Elane Photography, and Melissa and Aaron Klein, owners of a bakery called Sweet Cakes by Melissa.

For these people, and the many more who will risk everything for their right to live by their faith, we will continue to stand for marriage. And because we understand what marriage is, we will continue to promote the truth, value, and beauty of marriage in our culture.

Two Ways We Should NOT Respond to the “Redefinition” of Marriage « Alliance Defending Freedom Blog

Either Congress must remove marriage from the jurisdiction of federal courts (Ron Paul was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts' jurisdiction) or amend the U.S. Constitution to reign in oath-violating rogue atheist/homosexual judges.

Government recognition of "same-sex marriages" provides benefits for homosexuals.
• Tax benefits
• Job benefits
• Psychic benefits
Government recognition of the Biblical definition of marriage protects the rights of children.
Children have a right to be loved and raised by their biological mom and dad.
Protecting children is more important than providing benefits to adults.
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.
    • Changing the historic definition of marriage will vastly expand the powers of government over families. See Jennifer Roback Morse here and Jeremiah G. Dys here.
  • 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.
    • Don't believe in "same-sex marriage?" Too bad: you will be compelled to bake a cake for their wedding, and you will be locked in the gulag until you become more "sensitive."
    • Don't believe in "same-sex marriage?" Tough luck: you will be compelled to use your photographic talents to make their wedding look like a thing of beauty, even though you believe it is something that offends their Creator. And thousands of dollars of your income will be confiscated.
    • Your business and even your home will be sued, picketed, and your customers, distributors, and suppliers will be harassed until you change your religion or go out of business. Say hello to politically-correct fascism. Say hello to the "Gay Gestapo."

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,
    • because federal judges will be prohibited from expanding government power over marriage
  • unless there is a complete breakdown of respect for the Rule of Law.
    • and federal judges decide they're not going to respect the Constitution as amended.

next: Feminism