The real unspoken message
Mike Huckabee is talking about the so-called Marriage Amendment for those who were listening to what he said. Mr. Huckabee is speaking to his evangelical Christian supporters to secure their votes, without any regard for the Constitutionality of his promise. This Amendment would make marriage as being only between one man and one woman. Christians of course are allowed to amend the Constitution if they follow the rules, just like any other citizens. The news commentators obviously missed this message and just picked up on the Constitution conforming to the Bible.
However, the Constitution already conforms to Biblical principles since it is a divinely inspired document. That is the whole point and I hope Dr. Paul makes that clear since I know he believes this. The question of social laws conforming to the Bible, which is where Mr. Huckabee is pointing, is a State issue, as Dr. Paul has said already. To amend the Constitution to place the making of social law at the Federal level undermines the whole structure of the Constitution. In a sense I believe the 14th. Amendment has already done this with its equal protection clause that has been used to justify socially destabilising civil "rights" legislation.
The real issue is these civil "rights" and I have made several posts along this line because I believe it will be the defining issue of the campaign. Here it comes up again. Dr. Paul has already said that marriage is not something the State should be involved in so he opposes a Marriage Amendment on that basis. He did however vote, I believe, for the Federal Defense of Marriage Act and I have not read anywhere why he did that since, on the face of it, it goes against his principles.
The unspoken concern of evangelical Christians is same sex marriage, which has been touted as a civil "rights" issue. If this Marriage Amendment passes, then this will further encourage Federal Government intrusion into everyone's personal life. To give him the benefit of the doubt, Mr. Huckabee, although he does have nanny State instincts, probably does not understand this, and nor I am sure do his supporters. It is far better, as Dr. Paul has said, to remove the power of the Federal Government to legislate in the area of social policy. This, I hope, would mean the repeal of all civil "rights" legislation and this would go a long way to answering the concerns of the evangelical Christian voters. If Dr. Paul does address this issue, I would hope that he addresses it along these lines.
