No Marriage Amendment by 2nd Anniversary of Lawrence v. Texas
Date: Jun 26, 2005
Word Count: 400 words
Cross-Reference: Lawrence v. Texas, 2nd anniversary, Pro-polygamists
Two years after the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision, conservative pro-polygamists celebrate passage of another anniversary without passage of a big government federal marriage amendment.
Old Orchard Beach, MAINE, June 26, 2005 -- Pro-Polygamy.com -- Two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Lawrence v. Texas. Today, as Pro-Polygamy.com is observed using that anniversary to debut its web-site's re-design, pro-polygamists in general are happily marking that decision's second-year anniversary.
Mark Henkel, the national polygamy advocate and founder of the (non-Mormon) Christian Polygamy organization, TruthBearer.org ( www.TruthBearer.org ), noted, "Two years after that decision, there is still no federal marriage amendment. Yes, we are quite happy that such conservatism-turned-liberalism has not succeeded so far."
But the battle is far from over. Several state marriage amendments were passed and many marriage amendment leaders still demand a federal version.
While sympathetic to such conservative reactions, conservative pro-polygamists note that the amendment tactic to address the biological impossibility of "gay marriage" is more liberal and dangerous than the issue itself. Tactically, the true conservative solution is that of limited government.
Henkel explained, "'Government marriage' has no association with actually Biblical marriage. The Bible's polygamous heroes never needed 'government marriage.' Indeed, no one in the Bible was ever married 'by government.' So, really, any marriage amendment is not Biblical and only seeks to more liberally codify 'government marriage' socialism."
From limited government principles, any government that is liberally authorized to re-define marriage any one particular way - such as, "one man, one woman" - is just as liberally authorized to later re-define it another way - to even include "same sex marriage."
"That's not protection," said Henkel. "Even passed amendments can be repealed. That's why the obvious liberalism of a big government marriage amendment genuinely does not protect true marriage. It actually jeopardizes marriage while simultaneously justifying even more socialist government."
Removing big government from marriage equally removes any arguments for legalized "homosexual marriage." Thereby, no one would be forced to recognize any other asserted forms of marriage - real, fictional, or otherwise.
"That is the true conservative position of limited government and why it would more accurately value real Biblical marriage,'" explained Henkel.
Even so, since the first-year anniversary of Lawrence v. Texas a year ago, the federal marriage amendment failed in both Congressional houses. "While the Republican-turning-liberal Party subsequently won the 2004 election," commented Henkel, "one state amendment has already been overturned and the required support to ratify another federal attempt remains insufficient."
Reaching the second anniversary passage without any federal marriage amendment passage, polygamy activists are indeed optimistic.