Welcome To Missouri where we have Talent-less Senators
Welcome To Missouri where we have Talent-less Senators
Dear Mr. Rosen:
Thank you for contacting me regarding your opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment. I appreciate the time you have taken to share your views with me, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.
This issue is upon us because the Massachusetts Supreme Court decided, with no input from the citizens of Massachusetts, that same sex marriages should be permitted. Because of the way our federal system works, it is likely that other courts will force people in other states to recognize same-sex marriages contracted in Massachusetts, and the federal courts may force it upon the people in a national case.
Marriage is our oldest social institution. It is older than our formal religions and our systems of property and justice, and it certainly predates the Constitution and the existence of the United States. And marriage may be the most important of all these institutions because it represents the accumulated wisdom of literally hundreds of generations over thousands of years about how best to lay the foundation of a home in which we can raise and socialize our children. This does not mean that every child is or can be raised as the product of a traditional marriage. It just means that, for reasons which we cannot fully explain but which have been overwhelmingly validated by social science, the idea of marriage is tremendously important to the fabric of civil society.
In other words, marriage is what it is because our society has collectively judged over centuries that marriage as so defined is the best way to perpetuate and perfect the mores of good individual and social life. And according to the traditional definition, everyone has the right to get married but not to anybody he or she may choose; you can't marry a sibling, for example, or a person who is already married-and this is true regardless of the perceived justice or injustice of such restrictions in particular cases. The same has always held true for same-sex marriage, and we don't have anywhere near enough experience with same-sex couples to say that we should discard this restriction. To the extent we have experience with same sex marriage, the results have been disquieting. In the Scandinavian countries which have permitted same sex marriage, marriage of all kinds has systematically declined. The more malleable the definition of marriage becomes, the less respect people have for it, and the less important it is as part of family life.
But apart from all this is the question of whether courts should be deciding these issues. The first and most basic political right is the right to self government. This means, among other things, that courts have no authority to issue and enforce decrees upon the people of this country unless they act on the basis of some law which was enacted with popular consent. Of course, a court decision actually based upon the Constitution would have a basis in the consent of the people. But on what intellectually honest basis can it be said that the constitution of Massachusetts requires the people of that state to change their marriage law in such a radical way?
The only way to justify such a decision is on the theory that the people intended to vest in judges the right to govern by decree-to rule as they see fit, regardless of what the Constitution and statutes actually say, were intended to say, or have always been understood as saying. The question is not whether judges should be strict or liberal constructionists, but whether the judicial function is still one of construction at all, or whether judges should be allowed to make the law up as they go along. This can not be admitted without discarding the first principles of representative government.
I voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment because a Constitutional amendment is the only sure means now remaining for trying to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. If the courts complete the process of imposing their views on the people, their decisions will be irreversible through any process other than Constitutional amendment.
Again, thank you for contacting me. If I can be of further assistance, please don't hesitate to call or write.
If you would like to contact me via e-mail, please visit http://talent.senate.gov/Contact/default.cfm
Sincerely,
Senator Jim Talent
Dear Mr. Rosen:
Thank you for contacting me regarding your opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment. I appreciate the time you have taken to share your views with me, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.
This issue is upon us because the Massachusetts Supreme Court decided, with no input from the citizens of Massachusetts, that same sex marriages should be permitted. Because of the way our federal system works, it is likely that other courts will force people in other states to recognize same-sex marriages contracted in Massachusetts, and the federal courts may force it upon the people in a national case.
Marriage is our oldest social institution. It is older than our formal religions and our systems of property and justice, and it certainly predates the Constitution and the existence of the United States. And marriage may be the most important of all these institutions because it represents the accumulated wisdom of literally hundreds of generations over thousands of years about how best to lay the foundation of a home in which we can raise and socialize our children. This does not mean that every child is or can be raised as the product of a traditional marriage. It just means that, for reasons which we cannot fully explain but which have been overwhelmingly validated by social science, the idea of marriage is tremendously important to the fabric of civil society.
In other words, marriage is what it is because our society has collectively judged over centuries that marriage as so defined is the best way to perpetuate and perfect the mores of good individual and social life. And according to the traditional definition, everyone has the right to get married but not to anybody he or she may choose; you can't marry a sibling, for example, or a person who is already married-and this is true regardless of the perceived justice or injustice of such restrictions in particular cases. The same has always held true for same-sex marriage, and we don't have anywhere near enough experience with same-sex couples to say that we should discard this restriction. To the extent we have experience with same sex marriage, the results have been disquieting. In the Scandinavian countries which have permitted same sex marriage, marriage of all kinds has systematically declined. The more malleable the definition of marriage becomes, the less respect people have for it, and the less important it is as part of family life.
But apart from all this is the question of whether courts should be deciding these issues. The first and most basic political right is the right to self government. This means, among other things, that courts have no authority to issue and enforce decrees upon the people of this country unless they act on the basis of some law which was enacted with popular consent. Of course, a court decision actually based upon the Constitution would have a basis in the consent of the people. But on what intellectually honest basis can it be said that the constitution of Massachusetts requires the people of that state to change their marriage law in such a radical way?
The only way to justify such a decision is on the theory that the people intended to vest in judges the right to govern by decree-to rule as they see fit, regardless of what the Constitution and statutes actually say, were intended to say, or have always been understood as saying. The question is not whether judges should be strict or liberal constructionists, but whether the judicial function is still one of construction at all, or whether judges should be allowed to make the law up as they go along. This can not be admitted without discarding the first principles of representative government.
I voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment because a Constitutional amendment is the only sure means now remaining for trying to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. If the courts complete the process of imposing their views on the people, their decisions will be irreversible through any process other than Constitutional amendment.
Again, thank you for contacting me. If I can be of further assistance, please don't hesitate to call or write.
If you would like to contact me via e-mail, please visit http://talent.senate.gov/Contact/default.cfm
Sincerely,
Senator Jim Talent
Comments
Post a Comment