Gay Marriage Amendment Supporters Seek Constitutional Convention?
By Robert Novak
June 24, 2006
The National Ledger

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Supporters of a constitutional amendment to keep the courts from legalizing homosexual marriage, stunned by poor support in the recent Senate vote, are beginning a campaign for a constitutional convention.

The provision of the Constitution's Article V requiring such a convention if called by two-thirds of the state legislatures has never been used. Fear of throwing the Constitution open to general amendment has overridden support for specific issues. However, key advocates of barring gay marriages believe the constitutional convention strategy will keep the issue alive.

A recent memo circulated within the anti-gay marriage coalition lists Princeton Professor Robby George, Tony Perkins and Chuck Donovan of the Family Research Council, and conservative financial consultant Frank Cannon as favoring the strategy.

**************************
This is an excerpt from the top of this Robert Novak post in The National Ledger. This is an idea that its time has come. Conservatives and Liberals alike fear the Constitutional version of a National Constitutional Convention. The reason for the fear is the potential for changes that both sides of the political scale feel may not be able to live with.

A Convention may be called for a specific purpose; however a Convention might open the door to address everyone’s pet peeve.

I am no longer fearful of such a situation. There are definite issues the moral majority needs to address in this nation. The Leftists and irreligious are allowing morality to be steeped in Humanism and relativity. I hear all the time that not everyone has a Christian viewpoint and that the Christian viewpoint is archaic. While it might be true that not everyone has a Christian viewpoint, I believe the majority viewpoint in America is still a Christian one. Therefore a concept of what is and what is not archaic would only be valid to the irreligious and immoral.

It is time to take Humanistic and Left leaning Judges out of the equation of legislating American Law. The Judiciary is there to interpret law, not to create law.

It is time for the people of the States to decide moral issues of homosexuality, prayer, religion in public, abortion and so on. It is appalling that a huge majority of people may decide an issue by Initiative or by being a voting constituency of its Representatives and then have a Left thinking Judge strike the Law down.

Here comes the neoconservative in me. I am all for a loyal opposition, however some serious issues need to be addressed relating Presidential Appointments. For example instead of the Senate confirming an appointee, the framework should be debate and up or down vote. Screw the procedural hogwash relating to committee. If the person is not qualified, then vote the person down.

Yes, the time for a Constitutional Convention is needful.