| I am not in favor of a Federal amendment disallowing homosexual marriage. I do not think it would be necessary for states to so amend their constitutions either. A simple law defining the circumstances of a legal marrige would be sufficient. The only counter to this would be judges who feel they have a right to define the circumstances. But judges are less representative of majorities than are legislatures. In answer to your question: "Who has the authority, by the Constitution, to define marriage?" there is only one answer. The majority of voters or their representatives in a legislature.
I would like the government out of the marriage business, too. I don't think that JPs should be doing weddings. I don't think a marriage license is necessary. I think if homosexuals can find a minister who will perform the ceremony, they can call themselves "married." If majorites of the traditionalist citizenry snort and raise their eyebrows at such a situation, I have attempted in this thread to ascertain why.
I am not in favor of laws which favor married people over others who are unmarried. I believe that is discrimination and thus unfair. These are my views and I think them reasonable.
"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." -- John Adams |