“What was once an important debate over the nature, purpose, and legal status of marriage has emerged as a critical national issue, the resolution of which will shape the future of our society and the course of constitutional government in the United States,” noted constitutional scholar and historian Dr. Matthew Spalding stated in an article for the Heritage Foundation.

In May the California State Supreme Court in a 4-3 decision, overturned state law which designated marriage to be between one man and one woman and thus allowed same-sex couples to enter into marriages. Twenty-seven states have approved constitutional amendments to define and protect traditional marriage, but the citizens of Iowa have not been able to vote on a marriage amendment because the amendment has been bottled up in the Legislature since the Democrats took control in the 2006 election.

The aftershocks of the California ruling are being felt throughout America. The Ames Tribune headline read: “California Ruling Reverberates in Iowa.” In August 2007, Iowa’s Defense of Marriage Act was ruled unconstitutional by a Polk County District judge and the decision is on appeal to the Supreme Court of Iowa. Just as with California, Iowa needs to amend the state Constitution to constitutionally protect traditional marriage.

California’s ruling is another sign of the need to constitutionally protect marriage, not only in Iowa, but on a national level, which means adopting the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA). Advocates for same-sex marriage are trying to turn their crusade into the next civil rights movement. Although this author disagrees highly with that notion and believes that protecting traditional marriage is an absolute necessity, it is also important to discuss the constitutional ramifications of amending the United States Constitution to protect marriage.

Traditionally social issues such as marriage have been regulated by the states under our constitutional system of federalism. However government, constitutional interpretation, and federalism have changed significantly from the original intent of the Framers since the Progressive Era, but does judicial activism as clearly demonstrated by courts in California, Iowa, and Massachusetts warrant a Federal Marriage Amendment?
Amending the Constitution should be taken seriously and only for needed purposes. Many conservatives are torn over the FMA because it appears to go against the grain of traditional federalism. “In our system of law, the powers of government are divided between the federal and state government. The Framers rightly left marriage policy, as so many other things, with the states,” wrote former Attorney General Edwin Meese, III, who served in President Ronald Reagan’s administration.

At the same time General Meese argued that the “fundamental definition of marriage is no mere policy issue,” but the “meaning of one of the primary elements of civil society.” In addition, he argues that marriage is not “a matter for state-by-state experimentation,” and the issue of marriage cannot be viewed as the same as other issues such as taxation. “Society is not harmed when high-tax states live side by side with low tax states. The market adjusts to the inconsistency. Not so with marriage,” argued Meese in an essay for The Heritage Foundation. Traditional marriage simply cannot be reduced to a state by state issue.

Marriage is a national issue with social and cultural implications. “A highly integrated society such as ours—with questions of property ownership, tax and economic liability, inheritance, and child custody crossing state lines—requires a uniform definition of marriage,” argued Meese. A redefinition of marriage would have overflowing consequences in all areas of American culture.

“The question of homosexual marriage is going to be decided at the national level; either there will be a constitutional right to such marriages created out of whole cloth by judges, or there will be an amendment to block that development,” wrote Judge Robert H. Bork in Slouching Toward Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline.

Information courtesy Public Interest Institute, Web site: www.limitedgovernment.org.

70308