Get E-mail Updates
As a constitutional conservative, I believe that we need to return this country to the principles it was founded upon. Recently, I’ve taken fire from the media due to my constitutional interpretation of “marriage” and the Defense of Marriage Act. I am opposed to same-sex marriage and believe that marriage is between a man, woman, and God.
The Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1996 by both houses of Congress and signed into law by President Clinton. This Act affirms that no state, territory or district within the United States needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state. The Act also defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman. I support the law because it is based on the constitution – and its basis is the general welfare clause, included in the Constitution to promote a state of general well-being among Americans.
When individual states began defining marriage as something other than its traditional, Judeo-Christian based definition as a union between a man and a woman, the federal government was forced to step in.
The fact that some states were defining marriage in a way that was unacceptable to other states, taken into account with the Full Faith & Credit clause, created disharmony between the states. Had it been allowed to continue, the general welfare would have been disrupted.
As for the foundational belief that our rights come from God, and governments are instituted among men to secure these rights, this foundation demands that the only right to marriage is as defined by God and therefore being between a man and a woman.
The Defense of Marriage Act was both necessary and constitutional, in order to recognize an individual states’ right to refuse to be imposed upon by an extra-constitutional action taken by another state, and thereby promoting the general welfare between the states.
« Tim D’Annunzio Denounces Outsider’s Entry in Congressional Race
