|
It would be good in that it would bring things to a head, and however popular such an amendment might be among the voting class, it would be impossible to prevent opponents from getting it into the record that such an amendment does indeed establish a precedent of hard-wiring doctrine of a particular religious sect into the constitution of a state into which secularity is supposedly already hard-wired.
It is an amendment that comes with its own constitutional crisis, right in the package!
If the amendment was actually passed, that would be very bad for the obvious reasons, but it would also be bad because then we would have in essence, a contradictory constitution, and the obvious way to solve this problem is to amend the first amendment to remove the religion part.
That might not be as easily done as one to "ban gay marriage," although in the current climate, it is not out of the question.
Or, as an alternative, the Congress could vote no on an amendment to make the doctrine of a particular sect federal law, and instead vote to affirm equal protection under the law, AND separation of church and state, and put in some pretty words about respecting the rights of every American to "sanction" their own marriages in accordance with their religious beliefs, separately and independently of, any civil agreement (which would be ONE agreement, called ONE thing, for everybody) pertaining to inheritance, property, taxes, testifying in courts of law, spousal benefits at place of employment, child custody and zog zog zog.
|