Right Wing News (Conservative News and Views): "We are therefore pleased to learn that Sen. Orrin Hatch is introducing his own constitutional amendment. His version reads as follows: 'Civil marriage shall be defined in each state by the legislature or the citizens thereof. Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to require that marriage or its benefits be extended to any union other than that of a man and a woman.' This amendment would not only clearly allow civil unions to be enacted by legislatures; it would even allow legislatures to enact full-fledged same-sex marriage. But it would bar federal or state courts from imposing either.
Some conservatives will object that this amendment does not go far enough. But what it does is meet the challenge that actually inspired an amendment in the first place: the threat that judges will impose same-sex marriage or its equivalent in disregard of the public will. Hatch's language has the additional advantage of being clear and understandable to the layman. For most people, the notion that legislators should be making these decisions will seem like simple common sense.'
This my friends, is a winner. It is a Constitutional Amendment that CAN BE PASSED and that addresses the STATED concerns of people who are pro-gay marriage. This Amendment leaves the decision to the states & it does not use the Constitution to settle the issue of gay marriage forevermore. Of course, a lot of people who are pro-gay marriage would fight this Amendment tooth and nail because despite their claims to the contrary, they want the judiciary to impose gay marriage on America. But fighting against an Amendment like this would expose their real agenda for what it is.
On the other hand, as National Review said, there may be some conservatives who oppose this Amendment because they believe it doesn't go far enough. Hey, I understand where they're coming from, but you have to take your victories where you can find them. As I mentioned last week, Constitutional Amendments are difficult to get approved under the best of circumstances and this isn't the best of circumstances. So if we can pass an Amendment that protects states from having gay marriage imposed on them by the judiciary -- and as I said, I think Hatch's Amendment could be passed -- that would be a notable improvement over the current situation.
So if W. finds that he doesn't have the votes to get the Constitutional Amendment he's pushing for through Congress -- and that will probably be the case --I would strongly recommend that he throw his full support behind Hatch's Amendment or something very much like it."
John Hawkins in Rightwingnews.com also gets it right. Orrin Hatch's proposed amendment to the constitution exactly meets the attempt by gay activists to force marriage down the throat of the American people. It makes quite clear that the state propositions which have passed will be the law of those states and will not be set aside by activist judges. It also captures the elusive middle. That is, while it does not settle the question forever and for all time, it does require a vote of a legislature or the people of a state. If that amendment had been part of the constitution, Massachusetts would not now have gay marriage.