The Marriage Amendment Would Have Protected The People's Will

I’m generally hesitant to amend the Constitution; there are few things as permanent as a constitutional amendment, and it’s something that clearly shouldn’t be done lightly. However, when activist judges repeatedly take steps to overrule the clear voice of a majority of the People, we are left with very few options.

On two separate occasions, the people of Montana have clearly said that marriage should be defined as it has always been in this country, a union between one man and one woman, which is what I’ve always believed. This has been the case in many other states as well. Unfortunately, the overwhelming consensus of the people is not good enough for some. As we have seen in a number of states over the past several years, a handful of judges and other public officials have taken it upon themselves to decide what should constitute marriage. Words must have meanings that can’t be changed based upon the political whimsy of a court, mayor, or any other public officials that are more interested in scoring political points than they are in doing what is right. I’m concerned it’s only a matter of time before the recently enacted Montana constitutional amendment is challenged.

The ultimate decision in an issue this important must fully reflect the desire of the People, not just those of us in Washington, and certainly not that of a handful of activist judges. That’s why I voted today in favor of a constitutional amendment that protects traditional marriage laws, protects the will of the people, and sends a clear message, we do not like judicial activism.

More in Finance

Wall Street prepares Dodd-Frank assault

Read more »