Marriage Amendment

6 June 2006

A Constitutional Amendment protecting marriage is problematice, not becasue I don't support protecting traditional marriage, but that it is for that to decide. The Federal Defense of Marriage Act, which has been upheld in the Ninth Circuit says that no state has to honor an act or public record of another state that is contrary to their public policy.

This amendment is also an affront to federalism. It will hand-tie states who wish to recognize same-sex relationships becasue the groups that support the amendment will automatically challenge any such law that is close to creating a marriage-like relationtionship.

If sate courts make the decision to say that same-sex union are protected under state constitutional provisions that votrers have a remedy, vote them out. I know that in Illinois we have a judicial retention vote in every election; this is the chance we have to expunge the bench of those who vote the wrong way. I am sure this is the case for state court judges in many other states. I know it is also so in Claifornia because it was mentioned during the confirmation of Judge Janis Rodgers Brown. It is also so in Texas and probably every other state in the union.

We have a remedy on the federal level: impeachment, if we wanted to use it for that. How can we say that any group does not have equal protection under the laws? When we strat seeking toenshrine these wedges in our federal constitution the concern I have is that we will also begin to constitutionally restrict other minorities.

We do not need the federal government deciding the issue of marriage. This is the job of the states. Illinois has a Marriage Protection Act that was passed and signed by then Gov. George Ryan in 1996 and we will have a ballot initiative on our cballot for a state constitutional amendment in November.

I find it better if we write a law restricting the jurisdiction of the federal courts and enjoin them from ddeciding any case that touches on the definition of marriage. We would also have to make it clear that this only applie to marraiage and is not to be construed to apply to cases where a custody a greement is violated and the child is taken over state lines becaue tis rhen becomes a federal issue.

People of the states should decided marriage, not the federal government. State electorates have the power to unseat judges who decide this issue in ways contrary to their values. The Federal government needs to stay out of this issue. This amendment is really a political stunt for the base becasue everyone knows that their is no way that their will be 60 votes for cloture or 67 votes for the amendment itself. This is a devisive issue in the country and not the most important thing for the Senate to be taking up at this time. It only comes up during election cycles in time to secure the Republican base and will nto be the 'magic bullet' this time as you have previously said. Please take a different course, even if it aggravates the base. We need to keep the system of federalism operating in its current form.

Thank you.