Marriage Amendment - Most Asked Questions
about a state constitutional amendment

Do we really need a state constitutional amendment? Absolutely. In recent years, even in recent weeks, it has become painfully clear that we are no longer a nation under the rule of law, but rather we are under the rule of judges or justices. When that happens, we are no longer equal, but selectively privileged by the whims of the judges over us. Massachusetts' Supreme Court ruled that the state legislature HAD to pass a law creating same-sex marriage. The mayor in San Francisco blatantly disregarded state law and authorized same-sex marriages, with sitting judges NOT intervening. If Kentucky does not pass a state constitutional amendment protecting marriage, the entire state will be vulnerable to the same tyranny of the few. In fact, just one "newly-married" Kentucky gay couple from San Francisco and one liberal judge could entirely overturn our existing statutes if there is not clarity in the state constitution.

Won't the amendment to the U.S. constitution that President Bush just endorsed do the same thing? First of all, IF Congress passes it successfully, it will probably take five to seven years for three quarters (3/4) of the states to ratify it. And, it may not pass. Historians also note that serious amendments to the constitution have been suggested over 500 times in our brief history, with only 27 successfully ratified. (We have a total of 27 amendments with the first ten ratified in 1791 at one time as the Bill of Rights.) Even if the proposed U.S. amendment is passed, it is written so that states will still have significant latitude regarding their regulation of marriage. With that being the case, Kentucky should decide now which direction it desires to go.

How much time do we have to pass the amendment to our state constitution? To act this year, the amendment must be authorized by the end of the current 2004 session of the General Assembly, which ends, for all practical purposes on April 1st. Then, it would have to be ratified by the people in the next full election - November of this year. If we don't pass it this year, we'll have to wait until 2006 to try again.

Isn't this really about civil rights? No. Rights and freedoms are two different things. For example, we all have the freedom to attempt to make a great deal of money in America, but none of us can choose to sell drugs. Selling drugs is against the law. We are all free to find someone to marry (of the opposite sex), but we don't have a right to be married and we can't re-define marriage and break the law. Using the same analogy, and more fundamentally, making a great deal of money is a freedom, not a civil right. In a similar way, given the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling (Lawrence vs. Texas), the law now states that each American is free to pursue relationships of their choosing, including with members of the same sex. . . BUT it's not their right to re-define the institution of marriage for everyone else.

What about the rights of a homosexual? Homosexuals have the same rights as any other U.S. citizen. In particular, every individual in the country has the freedom to find someone (of the opposite sex) and become married. Again, given the recent court rulings (example: Lawrence vs. Texas), every individual can choose their relationships. But no group has the right to re-define marriage for everyone else just to serve their own agenda or their own preference.

But all kinds of people can be loving - why deny them their right to have a loving marriage? Yes, it's true that all kinds of people are loving. And that's how it should be. We can even agree that some homosexual couples really do love one another - but that doesn't mean that marriage should be re-defined. Neighbors can love one another, relatives can love one another, but that doesn't mandate the re-definition of marriage. Besides, same-sex couples with children are actually denying the "right" of a child to have both a mother and father. Their relationship is their choice, but a child brought into that relationship has none. So by their definition of rights, THEY are denying children their rights to have both a mother and father.

How will someone else having a homosexual marriage affect your marriage? That's like saying, "Since we're all equal as citizens, we are all now state senators, and therefore we all have the same privileges and responsibilities of state senators." Indeed, we are all equal as citizens, but we do not all have the place of a state senator in our Commonwealth. Similarly, all of our relationships are not equal to the place of marriage in our culture and in our society. A person wanting to be a state senator has to qualify. Similarly, each person wanting to be married has to "qualify" for marriage. As you know, the state does not have many limitations on marriage - but it does (and should) have some.

What impact will our small state have given the huge current national debate on this issue? More than you might think - Kentucky may be a bell weather for the nation. As you recall, Kentucky was the first state to be listed under the "Bush" wins column in 2000 election. And, Kentucky voted for Bill Clinton in each of the previous two elections. Kentucky just might be THE indicator of where the nation comes out on this issue. Perhaps even more important, if Kentucky debates the issue and acts by passing the amendment quickly - in March - it will send a message and a model for all other states to follow. Then, the Commonwealth could be a leader (or THE leader) for the nation in the effort to protect marriage.

Do we really need a state constitutional amendment? Absolutely. In recent years, even in recent weeks, it has become painfully clear that we are no longer a nation under the rule of law, but rather we are under the rule of judges or justices. When that happens, we are no longer equal, but selectively privileged by the whims of the judges over us. Massachusetts' Supreme Court ruled that the state legislature HAD to pass a law creating same-sex marriage. The mayor in San Francisco blatantly disregarded state law and authorized same-sex marriages, with sitting judges NOT intervening. If Kentucky does not pass a state constitutional amendment protecting marriage, the entire state will be vulnerable to the same tyranny of the few. In fact, just one "newly-married" Kentucky gay couple from San Francisco and one liberal judge could entirely overturn our existing statutes if there is not clarity in the state constitution.

Won't the amendment to the U.S. constitution that President Bush just endorsed do the same thing? First of all, IF Congress passes it successfully, it will probably take five to seven years for three quarters (3/4) of the states to ratify it. And, it may not pass. Historians also note that serious amendments to the constitution have been suggested over 500 times in our brief history, with only 27 successfully ratified. (We have a total of 27 amendments with the first ten ratified in 1791 at one time as the Bill of Rights.) Even if the proposed U.S. amendment is passed, it is written so that states will still have significant latitude regarding their regulation of marriage. With that being the case, Kentucky should decide now which direction it desires to go.