1. Marriage should be left to the states.
The FMA does leave marriage to the states. If a legislature wants to legalize homosexual “marriage,” it can do so. What the FMA does is stop federal and state courts from forcing states to allow same sex “marriage.” So if you’re pro-state choice, you should support the FMA.
2. The FMA would write discrimination into the Constitution.
The Constitution already discriminates in countless ways. You can’t vote if you’re under 18. You can’t become president if you weren’t born a U.S. citizen. You can’t vote in the Senate unless you are a senator (or, in case of a tie, the vice president). The question is whether reserving marriage to a man and a woman is a worthy thing to do.
3. We don’t need the FMA yet. Let’s wait until a federal court forces a state to accept same-sex “marriage.”
This excuse is like saying we should not shore up the levees until after a hurricane or flood knocks them down. Be serious.
So far, every state marriage amendment has passed by overwhelming margins. But state laws, even state constitutional amendments, are no obstacle to a federal court bent on imposing its view of “inclusive” marriage. To oppose the FMA out of devotion to the homosexual (or gender-is-irrelevant) worldview is honest, if misguided. But to oppose the FMA for other reasons is, at best, just plain misguided.
–Walter M. Weber, senior litigation counsel with the American Center for Law and Justice, has specialized in constitutional law for over 20 years.