When is it correct to amend the Constitution

When I hear people talking about the Federal Marriage Amendment, I frequently hear the argument, that they agree that marriage should be one man, one woman, but an Amendment isn't the correct way to do it. They say the constitution should be the last recourse.

I agree with that statement as far as it goes. There are no objective standards as to when we should amend. I don't think the flag burning amendment should go forward. My standard for amending the constitution is this:
1. The subject should not be able to be accomplished in any other way.
2. If the amendment is not accomplished a significant harm will come to the country and society as a whole.

Taking my earlier example of the flag burning, the activist courts have certainly taken away legislation as a route to accomplish it. On the second issue there is room for debate. While I think burning a flag is certainly reprehensible, I don't think it harms us as a society. I believe it says more about the person burning the flag, than society as a whole.

This brings us back to marriage. Activist courts have taken away the legislative avenue. Activist judges are deciding today whether to make gay marriage legal, by judicial fiat. Eventually nine people in black robes will rule that either the framers wanted or did not want gay marriage. The people will have nothing to say about it. The Defense of Marriage act passed under Bill Clinton is being challenged under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution. Many expect it will be overturned. If this happens it takes it away from being a State's Rights issue. Each state will have to recognize other states' marriages whether they want to or not. This being said my number 1 criteria is satisfied.

Criteria number 2. Will society be harmed if gay marriage is legal. Marriage and family have been the building blocks of our society. History of countries that have made gay marriage legal tells us that when opened up, marriage becomes less significant, not more. These states have seen lower and lower percentages of the population entering into marriage. In America we see inner city life becoming more and more of a war zone for those who live there, for all races and ethnicities. Positive correlation between this and low marriage rates in the inner city are impossible to ignore.

If we throw out the standard of marriage we don't make gay marriage legal. We leave all questions of what is legal up to the courts. This has been a disaster for many issues, such as abortion. Today no common sense restriction can be put on abortion without the blessing of our friends in black robes. We cannot allow this to happen to marriage.

That being said I believe my second criteria is also satisfied. Now, for those who believe we should not amend for this subject, if we should not amend for this issue, is there ever going to be an issue that rises to the level of an Amendment? The amendment process is there for important issues, and should be taken seriously, but should not be ignored. Remember prohibition? While I believe that amendment was ill conceived, it was the people who spoke and then spoke again to repeal it. Amendments are not easy to accomplish. It is much easier to get a group of judges to declare it so. That doesn't make it correct. Letting this happen for marriage would be disastrous for the American society. Crucial subjects in our society must be decided by the people and not the courts.

I would like to remind all that we can have gay marriage tomorrow. Just get the legislature to pass it. While I would disagree with the law, I would not discount the legitimacy of it. Decided by judges makes it questionable at best. Ever wonder why no legislature has acted on its own to make gay marriage legal? The people would react at the ballot box, either positively, or negatively, but the people would act, as it should be!!!