But he was correct about leaving it to the States.
AHEAD OF THE CURVE: Could it be that John Kerry had read THE NEW AMERICAN for July 29, 2002? In that issue of our magazine, former Idaho assistant attorney general George Detweiler stated most emphatically that the topic of marriage should be left to the states. Disagreeing with the intent of H. J. Res. 93, the "Defense of Marriage Amendment," he cited the position of Dr. Alan Carlson of the Howard Institute who offered: "Family policy has historically been regarded as a Tenth Amendment issue, one that's within the purview of the states. When the U.S. Constitution was written, one of the powers specifically not delegated by the states to the federal government was control of family law and governance."
Mr. Detweiler then added: "Although the language in H. J. Res. 93 reflects laudable concerns, it has no place in the U.S. Constitution and no place in federal law. Marriage should remain exclusively under state dominion, and those seeking to protect marriage should locus their efforts within that arena."
In his article, Mr. Detweiler explained: "It makes no sense to amend the Constitution to rectify the abuse of judicial power, since the Constitution is not the problem."
For those who favor amending the U.S. Constitution to address the matter of same-sex marriages, he counseled that should action be needed to rein in federal justices, "The proper remedy for judicial usurpation is to employ a little-known power contained in Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution which allows the Congress to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This power applies, by extension, to all federal courts...."
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||Ahead Of The Curve|
|Author:||McManus, John F.|
|Publication:||The New American|
|Article Type:||Brief Article|
|Date:||Nov 29, 2004|
|Previous Article:||Same-sex "marriage" issue hurt Kerry campaign.|
|Next Article:||The ring.|