Amend It.

I am strongly opposed to amending a state or U.S. Constitution to address something like marriage. I don't think the Constitution should have language which expressly sets forth marriage shall be between one man and one woman only.

The problem is, judges don't share that belief. As we have seen, first in Massachusetts, then in California and now in Connecticut, judges believe they have the power and the duty to amend the state constitution to override the express will of the people and the state legislatures and radically alter the state constitution and create out of whole cloth a new definition of marriage.

Accordingly, it is time to rebuke the judges and let the people amend their constitutions - it is probably time to pass a federal marriage amendment as well.

It should be noted the extreme violence these radical judges are doing to the state of the law by substituting their own personal whims for the laws carefully thought out and developed over time. It could be that, in time, society will change and will decide to jettison marriage and substitute something new. So be it - it is not for the judges to act as tyrants to ram these changes through.

Therefore - amend the constitution and send a clear message to the judges that they, too, are under the law.

More

1. Beldar on the CT ruling.

Does Same-Sex "Marriage" Threatens Religious Liberty?

Here is an interesting Law Review article which argues that it does. (In .pdf format)

Among the potential liabilities noted for Religious Institutions:

• Risk of Suits Under Employment Anti-Discrimination Laws;
• Risk of Suits Under Fair Housing Laws;
• Risk of Suits under Public Accommodation Laws;
• Potential Hate Crimes or Hate Speech Liability;
• Lost of Tax-Exempt Status;
• Exclusion from Social Service Contracts;
• Exclusion from Government Facilities and Fora;
• Exclusion from Licensing Marriage.

Worth reading.