The Senate begins debating the viability of the U.S. Constitution this week as it considers the Federal Marriage Amendment. I've said this before and I'll keep saying it until this proposed amendment is dead: regardless of your opinion on same-sex marriage, a Constitutional amendment is not the answer.

For more than 200 years, we've relied on Federalism, the notion that, while all states are connected into one nation, each state retains its fundamental right to decide how its citizens will govern and be governed. This includes contracts. Marriage, as a legal institution, is a contract.

We have Senators who do not believe that protecting the centuries-old foundation of our nation is more important than pushing a religious social agenda onto the nation. Consider Senator Orrin Hatch's recent statements:

Next week, the Senate will vote on a Federal Marriage Amendment. In a series of hearings in several different Senate committees, witness after witness confirmed what the American people already know. Traditional marriage is the single best arrangement for raising children and forming citizens. For that reason, government may certainly select this time-proven institution for special preference and protection and a high burden exists for those who would introduce radical and untested substitutes. And it should be the American people who make such choices, not judges imposing their own preferences without the people's consent.

The American people are not making this amendment choice; it's the Congress. Granted, they are elected by the people they govern, but they are not the people. I have a point to make about "activist" judges, but I'm going to hold that until the end.

Now consider

As a senator, my oath of office requires me to defend the Constitution and the system of government it established. That oath means supporting the only solution to this crisis that threatens to undermine not only the vital institution of marriage, but the fundamentals of democracy as well. Protecting marriage requires amending the U.S. Constitution because we simply cannot wait for, or tolerate, further judicial corruption of both marriage and the Constitution. As our experiences with abortion, criminal rights, and religious liberty demonstrate, it is nearly impossible to correct Supreme Court decisions once made. "We the people" established the Constitution, but if we leave this issue to the courts, same-sex marriage will be here to stay whether we like it or not.

Judicial corruption of marriage? The Constitution? How is granting rights to more citizens a corruption? If the judiciary is corrupting the Constitution, how do we define what the Congress is doing to it? And that last sentence... Sometimes "whether we like it or not" isn't a sufficient argument. A majority of the nation felt that only white men with property should vote, but that didn't make it right. The majority is entitled to an opinion, but the majority doesn't automatically win. That's why we have a court system. Checks and balances exist for a reason.

Now consider:

Our opponents' objection that the Constitution has always been amended to extend rights tells only half the story. The Constitution's amendments have generally served to extend the right of citizens to govern themselves, and to be able to make final decisions on issues such as marriage. The people in the states have already spoken on this issue, and the FMA will protect their fundamental right to democratic self-government — a right being eroded by an unaccountable judiciary.

The Constitution has not been amended only to extend rights. It was also amended to enact Prohibition, but that was repealed for legitimate reasons. The real argument from Senator Hatch's opponents (Hi.) is that the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, is meant to protect the citizenry from the government. This amendment fails that test.

As for the right of citizens to govern themselves, this argument is so weak that it's laughable. Just because "the people have already spoken on this issue", the FMA will not protect our right to democratic self-government. The FMA would restrict the right to democratic self-government because future generations couldn't change this without another amendment. How does that return the decision to the citizenry?

Now consider:

For a simple and compelling reason, traditional marriage has been the norm in every political community for 5,000 years. Society has an interest in the future generations created by men and women. Decoupling procreation from marriage in order to make some people feel more accepted denies the very purpose of marriage itself. And such a radical transformation should not be imposed by judges upon people who would not choose it for themselves. Yet absent a constitutional amendment, that is precisely what we face.

Same-sex marriage does not decouple procreation from marriage. Individual freedom did that. Imagine this, if you will, that in every marriage contract, this new line is inserted: "By entering this marriage contract, you agree that you will procreate within a reasonable amount of time. Without procreation, this marriage contract becomes null and void." Is that how we wish to define marriage?

Finally, the "activist judges" are not imposing same-sex marriage upon people who do not choose it for themselves. I haven't heard of the "You Must Marry a Same-Sex Partner Day" imposed by any judge, so correct me if I'm wrong. This notion is absurd.

I'll wrap up with this: the rhetoric with this issue is "activist judges". With so much said about them, it sounds like that's the problem facing Congress, not a redefinition of marriage. (I do not believe this, but I don't bitch about "activist judges".) If that's the problem, deal with that problem. Adopting the FMA as the solution for "activist judges" is like cutting off your nose because you sneeze too much. Would you make that choice?

Contact your Senator and let them know that they've been told to defend the Constitution, not to undermine it.