Printed in the Bloomington Herald-Times, March 12, 2004
To the editor:
In his Feb. 17 letter, Mark Brostoff argues that a constitutional amendment forbidding governmental recognition of homosexual marriage is "big government at its worst." Brostoff laments that the Constitution "was designed to protect our most basic freedoms, not take them away." I wish Brostoff had his epiphany regarding individual liberty when he was publicly calling for Indiana University to censor Professor Eric Rasmusen.
The question is not whether homosexuals are (or will be) allowed to live in a committed relationship. The question is whether or not government will officially sanction homosexual marriages.
The Federal Marriage Amendment would not be getting the support it now does if an activist judiciary in Massachusetts did not decree homosexual marriages must be recognized. The Massachusetts decision dramatically increased concerns that the judiciary will force its will nationally, bypassing normal democratic channels. Thus, there is a need for the issue to be settled constitutional law.
I agree with Brostoff that the situation should be left to the states, which is why I do not support the FMA. I would prefer the principles behind the Defense of Marriage Act be codified in the Constitution to ensure this power remains with the states.