In our free society, people have the right to choose how they live their lives. And in a free society, decisions about such a fundamental social institution as marriage should be made by the people

…we’re in a free society?

Another portion:

These court decisions could have an impact on our whole Nation. The Defense of Marriage Act declares that no state is required to accept another state’s definition of marriage. If that act is overturned by activist courts, then marriages recognized in one city or state might have to be recognized as marriages everywhere else.

Perhaps not.  There’s no legal statute that requires states to recognize traditional marriages made in another state.  They just simply do it.  To the best of my knowledge (and I did a few searches to double-check), there exists NO law requiring that one state recognize a man and woman’s marriage that was made in another state.  They simply do. *shrug*

By the way, in my opinion, we will not win this fight.  If the FMA doesn’t pass, this time, it will the next time, or the next.  Ultimately, marriage will eventually be legally defined, nation-wide, unequivocably as between one man and one woman.  We simply have to hope that the idiots don’t strike down civil unions, too.  The current proposed amendment, allows the states the ability to make their own choices defining civil unions.  Bush is even nice enough to say so:

The constitutional amendment that the Senate will consider next week would fully protect marriage from being redefined, while leaving state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

What bothers me most about this?

A constitutional amendment is the most democratic solution to this issue, because it must be approved by two-thirds of the House and Senate and then ratified by three-fourths of the 50 state legislatures.

Yeah.. us, the people, have no direct vote on the ratification of the amendment.  It’s up to the people we elected to decide….

…personally, I’m already of the mindset that the instant they took office, they stopped representing us, and started representing their corporate backers, and other members of their party.

*(Note: some states do run a ballot election to determine whether or not the people wish the amendment to be ratified.  It’s been so long since the last time, I can’t remember if Texas does, or not.)

Technorati Tags: Gay rights. gay marriage, federal marriage amendment