|
Other Columns by Paul M. Weyrich
Paul M. Weyrich Bio
Printer-Friendly Version
One-Sentence Constitutional Amendment Preserves Marriage
By Paul M. Weyrich
April 29, 2004
Over my going on four decades here I've heard a lot of debate about Constitutional amendments. When I arrived here in the mid 1960s, a Constitutional amendment on school prayer was on the table. The Supreme Court had taken prayer out of the schools. The amendment would have allowed prayer provided it wasn't officially sponsored and provided those who wanted to opt out could do so. I recall being on the floor of the Senate when then Republican Leader Sen. Everett McKinley Dirksen (R-IL) said that perhaps the good Lord had granted him one last term in 1968 so he could lead a crusade to restore school prayer. The good Lord had other ideas. He was dead a few months later.
Then came Roe vs. Wade and Senator Helms (R-NC) and Senator Hughes (D-IA) in 1974 introduced a Constitutional amendment to overturn that fateful decision. It was the rallying cry for pro-lifers until 1981 when Sen. Hatch (R-UT.) introduced a two-step amendment, which immediately confused the movement. A Constitutional amendment outlawing abortion has been dead ever since.
And there was the flag-burning amendment. The Supreme Court said burning the flag was free speech. The House repeatedly passed the Constitutional amendment overturning that decision but when Sen. Hatch tried to get it through the Senate, even when Republicans had 55 Members, he always fell a vote or two short.
Then there was the balanced budget amendment. This was a pet project of the late Senator Paul Simon (D-IL) I helped Simon with that bill. He worked his colleagues with great fervor. Still, we just couldn't reach two thirds. Almost, but no cigar.
Now comes a Constitutional amendment on marriage. Most likely what will emerge via the GOP leadership in the Senate will be a one-sentence amendment that simply says that marriage is between one man and one woman.
I am told that, with a push from pro-family activists, such an amendment might pass the House. But the House doesn't want to vote on it unless it passes the Senate. That is foolish. We need to know where every single Member of Congress stands on this issue.
Back to the Senate, it appears that even a one-sentence amendment, which would have a pretty well united pro-family movement behind it, can't pass the Senate. Some, like Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), are against it because of its content. He has made his bed so to speak with the homosexual movement. In fact he is so against it, he won't even vote it out of committee with prejudice. That is a procedure that allows a Senator who opposes a measure still to get it to the floor for a vote where they will vote against it. Specter's position is such that the GOP leadership is going to have to invoke a very seldom used Rule that allows the Majority Leader to bring up a measure even though it has not been voted on in Committee.
Others say the Constitution is a sacred document and we shouldn't amend it. In fact, I hear that more and more - from conservative legislators at that.
First, that makes no sense at all. The Supreme Court is constantly amending our Constitution. The Founding Fathers, if they could somehow come alive, would no longer recognize the Constitution. They would look at McCain Feingold incredulously. They would look at the whole litany of decisions from school prayer to abortion to the Lawrence vs. Texas decision and now to what the Massachusetts Supreme Court is about to inflict on the nation, and they would say "this is not what we did in Philadelphia."
But the Founding Fathers anticipated that there might be an out-of-control judiciary which would try to usurp power. Their only miscalculation was that they believed that no legislature would stand for such action on the part of the courts.
Accordingly, they permitted the Constitution to be amended. Ever hear ofthe Bill of Rights? They happen to be the first ten amendments to the Constitution. If we never amended the Constitution we might still have slavery; surely women couldn't vote; we would elect our Senators by a vote of state legislatures; and so on.
There is nothing wrong with amending the Constitution. If the Founding Fathers had wanted a never-changing document they would not have provided for the amendment process. Indeed the Constitution also provides for the legislature to remove the courts from jurisdiction on most matters. That is what should have been done on some of the social issues. They should have been left up to the States.
Guess who was the last Senator to propose removing the courts from jurisdiction and who got that removal through the Congress? Why, it was then-Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD). These provisions were put there to be used.
I just do not understand conservatives who say it is betrayal of the Founding Fathers to amend the Constitution. Were these great men in the legislature today they would be lining up to propose Constitutional amendments to correct what the courts have thrown out of whack.
These legislators say we have to be very, very careful in amending the Constitution. Right. That is why it takes two-thirds of the Congress and three-quarters of the states to do so. The Equal Rights amendment has a steamroller behind it the likes of which I have never seen before or after that measure. Yet one determined Phyllis Schlafly and a band of her friends stopped it dead and every effort to revive it since has failed.
That is why several popular measures never made it. Great efforts were made to: restore school prayer, which had over 90% support in its day; overturn the flag burning decision, which had, in the 1980s, over 90% support; and balance the budget, which had, in the late 1990s, 75% support. Despite popularity and despite a push from the people there was a natural resistance to amend the Constitution.
That is no reason to avoid trying. A Constitutional amendment that affirms that marriage is between one man and one woman - end of sentence - would stop all this homosexual "marriage" business.
For heaven's sake, this is a no brainer. Virtually every demographic group supports this view. Blacks and Hispanics are among the strongest in their support. For conservatives to oppose such an amendment on the grounds that the Constitution is not to be amended is utter nonsense. If they have made a deal with the homosexuals they should say so and let the voters decide if they like that idea. But to hide behind the Constitution when clearly it needs to be amended to handle an issue, which the drafters of that great document could not have ever conceived would come up, is really political cowardice.
The question comes down to this: Are you for traditional marriage? If the answer is yes, then this is the one and only thing you can do about it.
-------------
Paul M. Weyrich is Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.
--------------------
Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.
| 
