When Congress voted last year on a proposed federal marriage
amendment to preserve traditional marriage, many politicians on
both sides of the aisle opposed the amendment. Not one senator
would publicly say that he or she supported homosexual marriage,
but many dismissed a federal amendment as unnecessary because
marriage was a state issue and no federal judge had threatened the
meaning of marriage. A federal marriage amendment, opponents
implied, was a solution in search of a problem.
Last month, a federal judge in Nebraska struck down that state’s
marriage amendment, thus creating the problem for which a federal
marriage amendment is now the only solution. But it didn’t take a
crystal ball to see it coming.
Back in 2000, 70 percent of Nebraskans expressed the desire that
marriage remain between one man and one woman. A single judge
decided he knew better.
While this is not the first time a judge has sought to redefine
marriage against the people’s will, this is the first time a state
constitutional amendment has been struck down. It was the supposed
strength of these state amendments to which many politicians
alluded when they falsely claimed that a federal marriage amendment
was unnecessary. Senator John McCain called an amendment
un-Republican because it imposes a federal remedy for a problem
that most states do not believe confronts them. Senate Democratic
Leader Harry Reid stressed that he “believe[s] in the sanctity of
marriage” but that, “before we tinker with our most cherished
rights, we should allow the states to deal with this issue…”
The Nebraska judge’s decision is irrefutable proof that those
who say marriage can be handled state by state are categorically
wrong. Such assertions ignore the reality that federal judges have
signaled unequivocally that they will not allow the people to
decide for themselves. This reality was not lost on Democratic
Senator Ben Nelson who recently told Focus on the Family’s Jim
Dobson that he now supports a federal marriage amendment. The
Nebraska senator reevaluated his position, which previously
endorsed state-level protections, in light of the Nebraska judge’s
unprecedented ruling.
It is also clear that the United States Supreme Court will not
allow the definition of marriage to remain a state issue. Through
Doe v. Bolton and Roe v. Wade (abortion),
Griswold v. Connecticut (contraception), and, more
recently, Lawrence v. Texas (sodomy) the high court has
demonstrated that it will have the final word on the most crucial
issues in the culture war.
Make no mistake: the definition of marriage in America is a
zero-sum affair that will be decided at the federal level. Either
activist courts will foist same-sex marriage upon an unwilling
nation, or the people will protect it through a federal marriage
amendment.
Support for such protections is not a betrayal of the goals of
limited government. In our system of government certain issues are
left to the states, while select others are deemed so essential to
our understanding of democracy that they must be taken up at the
national level.
For instance, the Constitution guarantees the federal government
the right to regulate commerce, which is the cornerstone of the
Controlled Substances Act, our national policy on illegal
drugs.
There are also federal standards for air and water pollution,
endangered species, drinking water quality, and a host of other
environmental issues. Not only is national environmental policy a
matter of practical necessity, it also underscores the seriousness
with which Americans regard protecting the environment.
In the same way, marriage is an issue that necessitates a
uniform standard.
Our country fought a civil war over the idea that some matters
are too important to be decided state by state. Just as slavery was
an assault on human dignity, the redefinition of marriage is an
assault on an institution at the foundation of successful families
and civilizations.
At a time when the president’s and Congress’s respective
approval ratings are floundering, and as public support for
protecting marriage reaches an all time high (in fact, a majority
now supports a federal marriage amendment), the political timing
for doing the right thing couldn’t be better.
The Nebraska ruling marks the supreme failure of state remedies
to judicial activism, which is exactly what marriage defenders have
been predicting would happen for years.
But it’s not too late. Now that it’s clear that shifting the
responsibility for protecting marriage to the states has failed,
the White House and Congress can act decisively in defense of the
most important building block of civilization. The state of the
union is only as strong as the state of that critical union of one
man and one woman — the American family.
