CMA Yes, FMA No

I may be considered anathema among many fellow Christians and social conservatives, but I agree wholeheartedly with fellow RMA blogger Michael (second time I’ve linked and quoted him in one week…wow!):

I believe marriage is the union of one man and one woman. I believe marriage is a Sacrament, instituted by God, affirmed by Jesus, and not particularly subject to the whim of judges in the state of Massachusetts or any other state.

However, the Constitution has granted the right and duty to decide licensing details to the several states. And it is in that forum that such decisions should be made–not Congress.

If the Senate were really interested in this issue, it would dedicate this week to passing a long slate of judges out of committee, to the floor, and through confirmation, rather than alter the Constitution to deal with this one, limited issue.

I couldn’t have said it better myself. The Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), which is destined to fail anyway (getting a simple majority of support in the Senate will be very difficult, and 67 votes are needed for passage), is an unnecessary and wasteful step to take, in my opinion.

On the other hand, supporters of traditional families in Colorado should look to sign the Colorado Marriage Amendment (CMA). I share the convictions of Dennis Prager but believe that the FMA is an imprudent tactic, since such a provision is not suited for the United States Constitution. The Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996 is entirely appropriate and most effective to prevent any state from having to recognize a “same-sex marriage” performed in another state.

For those who are unconvinced, here are some more in-depth sources to investigate. Begin by reading LaShawn Barber’s “The Nationalization of Marriage” from July 2004, which has plenty of links. Lest you doubt her strong Christian moral credentials and wonder how she can balance them with opposition to the idea of an FMA, also read her latest post.

You may also want to check out Dale Carpenter’s policy paper for the Cato Institute or – if you don’t have time to read – listen to him discuss the FMA on a brief podcast.