A lot of the professorial blogs are opposed to gay marriage. Most, I think, do so because of the particular professor’s libertarian bent. Others take a John Kerry “I know better than you” tone.
Here, quite frankly, is why I support the FMA.
I’m opposed to gay marriage for traditional and religious reasons. Notwithstanding that, I’m prepared to accept the will of the majority. If I lose in the free marketplace of ideas, so be it.
But, there is no free marketplace of ideas. Judges are preempting legislatures and forcing legislatures to recognize gay marriage despite no historical pattern of gay marriage. Those who want things as they exist are left with no remedy other than amending the constitution to ban something that does not exist.
If courts would restrain themselves and allow the people’s elected representatives to represent the people and make the decisions we elect them for, so be it if a legislature enacts gay marriage.
But there can be no debate when four black robe wearing holier than thous in Massamoscow legislate from the bench.
You let each state decide and let those states that disagree continue to not recognize gay marriage, and I’ll back you 100%. But, you run to court and force my state to recognize something a very clear majority don’t want to recognize, and it is time for an amendment. Just as I don’t think I should be able to impose my religion on you through the courts, you should not be able to impose your religion on me in the courts — and that is what this movement strikes me as — a secular religious idea where those who disagree can only be labeled heretics, err . . . bigots.
When a majority is then ready to accept gay marriage, we can repeal the amendment. I’ll oppose the effort, but I’ll respect or effort to work through the democratic constitutional process.
The current court driven path to gay marriage is, in my opinion, unconstitutional and conducted in bad faith.