I’ve been giving this some thought, and I must reiterate that the same sex marriage debate should be occurring on the state level, in my opinion. For more on why I feel that way, please read, “…..”
The reason it’s even more clear now is because I’ve been mulling over the fact that each state was meant to be a sovereign entity. We are “united” states, but not conformist states. By arranging this nation as a group of individual states, under the umbrella of one central government for the purpose of national security and few other specifically detailed necessities, the Founders gave us the opportunity to decide our destiny without leaving this country to do so. In other words, if you don’t like your state’s laws, you can move to another state while still remaining a citizen of this Republic.
When the federal government standardizes the states, where will we go if we feel the laws are not consistent with our Constitution and with our inalienable rights?
That’s why I don’t necessarily agree with a Constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage. Shocking, huh? I’m actually still torn over this issue. I do agree that utilizing the amendment process is the appropriate avenue to make a “federal case” of an issue that isn’t specifically addressed by the Constitution, and I understand the motivation. Still, I feel doing so removes some of the strength from protection of states’ rights.
If there were a way to guarantee that activist judges at the state level would only affect their own states and not attempt to impose their agendas on the entire nation, I would say leave it alone. That way, those whom want gay marriage can live in a state that allows it and those who don’t agree with it don’t have to worry about anyone attempting to force them to accept it. However, I do understand the urge for amendment simply to protect against those that do want to impose their ideals on the rest of the nation.
How Did Your Senators Vote on the Marriage Amendment?
Marriage: Separation of Church and State