Investor's Business Daily has an interesting opinion piece today headlined "Courting Trouble." Excerpt:
We have to agree with Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle that, as he put it this week, there is no "urgent need" to amend the Constitution right now to defend traditional marriage.Federal law is clear. It defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman, and it declares that no state can be forced to honor same-sex marriages established under another state's law.
This law, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, strikes the right balance between state and federal powers. As long as it stands, states are free to make their own decisions on same-sex unions without imposing their choices on others.
But for a man who says he believes that "marriage is a sacred union between men and women," Daschle sounds remarkably serene about the less immediate future.
"In South Dakota," he declared, "we've never had a single same-sex marriage and we won't have any." How can he be so sure?
The truth is, he can't. The future of same-sex marriage is not just up to states, and it's not just up to Congress. It's also up to the courts, especially the Supreme Court. And whatever the people of South Dakota or any other state believe, they could wake up one morning to find marriage redefined with no regard for their opinions.
Recent Comments