Congress is scheduled to begin debating this proposed amendment to the Constitution soon and I was heartened to discover that a group of religious organizations, including my own denomination, sent a letter to Congress opposing the amendment.
"It is not the task of our government and elected representatives to enshrine in our laws the religious point of view of any one faith. Rather, our government should dedicate itself to protecting the rights of all citizens and all faiths," they write and in two sentences hit upon the heart of the matter. No matter what emotional pleas either side may use in the debate, this is a church-state issue, plain and simple. Some religions believe that homosexulaity is a sin. Some don't. Why should one religion dicate the contents of our Constitution?
I find it particularly ironic that 3 of the sponsors of this bill, Allard, Brownback, and Inhofe also sponsored the Constitution Restoration Act of 2004, which, although it focuses on protecting elements or individuals in local government who acknowledge "God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government," has the overall purpose "to limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism."
Huh. Federalism. Perhaps my memory is slipping, but isn't Federalism all about...state's rights? Wikipedia says "The Federalist movement seeks to return political power to the people by decentralising and devolving existing structures of government." Do these guys know their names are attached to this marriage amendment? Cuz, boy, if they want to promote federalism, amending the constitution to prohibit something the states are busy deciding for themselves just doesn't seem like something they'd get behind.