was once an important debate over the nature, purpose, and legal
status of marriage has emerged as a critical national issue, the
resolution of which will shape the future of our society and the
course of constitutional government in the United States.
debate has taken form in courts throughout the nation. A series of
significant judicial decisions--beginning with that of a trial
court judge in Hawaii, followed by a superior court judge in
Alaska, and then by the Vermont Supreme Court--has brought the
issue of homosexual "marriage" to the forefront of our nation's
attention. Last November, a 4-3 decision of the Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court declared that traditional marriage upholds
persistent prejudices and that couples of the same sex have a right
to marry in that state.
Despite numerous efforts to block or delay
the Massachusetts court's controversial edict, the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts has been forced to issue marriage licenses to
same-sex couples since May 17. This decision will remake the entire
social structure of the state of Massachusetts and trigger state
and federal litigation throughout the United States.
These judicial decisions--as well as the
actions of local officials who, intentionally contrary to state
law, have issued thousands of fraudulent marriage licenses to
same-sex couples--seek to redefine the institution of marriage by
judicial fiat and affirm homosexual "marriage" as a fundamental
civil right that the federal government has a constitutional
obligation to secure nationwide.
Faced with such a concerted legal and
political effort to deconstruct and thereby undermine one of the
most basic institutions of civil society, policymakers must now
take immediate steps at both the state and federal levels to
protect marriage, prevent judicial usurpation, and uphold the rule
Although the amendment process should
never be taken lightly, and although it is an extremely difficult
endeavor, it is now the prudent and timely course--for the sake of
constitutional government and the sake of marriage--to amend the
U.S. Constitution to preserve marriage as the legal union between
one man and one woman.
What Is at Stake
thousands of years, on the basis of experience, tradition, and
legal precedent, every society and every major religious faith have
upheld marriage as a unique relationship by which a man and a woman
are joined together for the primary purpose of forming and
maintaining a family. This overwhelming consensus results from the
fact that the union of man and woman is apparent and manifest in
the most basic and evident truths of human nature.
Marriage is the formal recognition of this
relationship by society and its laws. While individual marriages
are recognized by government, the institution of marriage
pre-exists and is antecedent to the institution of government,
which in turn presupposes and depends on the institution of
marriage. Society's interest in uniquely elevating the status of
marriage among human relationships is that marriage is the
necessary foundation of the family, and thus necessary for societal
existence and well-being.
basic building block of society is the family, which is the primary
institution through which children are raised, nurtured, and
educated, and develop into adults. Marriage is the cornerstone of
the family: It produces children, provides them with mothers and
fathers, and is the framework through which relationships among
mothers, fathers, and children are established and maintained. Only
in the context of family built on the foundation of marriage can
the sometimes competing needs and interests of men, women, and
children be harmonized.
Because of its characteristic relationship
with the family, marriage is uniquely beneficial to society. Based
on existing studies comparing two-parent and single-parent
households, social science overwhelmingly demonstrates that
children do far better when they are raised by two married parents
in a stable family relationship and that children raised in other
household structures are subject to significantly increased risk of
Evidence further suggests that one reason
children do better in a married household is not just the stability
of having two parents, but the fact that a male and a female parent
each bring distinctive strengths, perspectives, and characteristics
to the family unit that benefit both children and the parents.
Although we have little information concerning children raised in
households with same-sex parents, what we do know is that marriage
between a man and a woman provides unique social, economic, and
health benefits for children, adults, and society in general.
Moreover, because of the shared
obligations and generational relationships that accrue with
marriage, the institution brings significant stability, continuity,
and meaning to human relationships and plays an important role in
transferring basic cultural knowledge and civilization to future
the end, despite all the changes that law and cultural trends have
wrought concerning marriage--despite the laws concerning prenuptial
agreements, divorce, tax, and property that treat marriage as a
contract--it has never before been, nor is it now completely, the
case that marriage is a mere contract. Society has changed the
form, but never the substance, of marriage; and it is the substance
of marriage--its very nature, definition, and purpose--that creates
and justifies its unique position as a social institution and
continues to give lawmakers strong and reasonable arguments for
upholding traditional marriage and protecting it in law.
The Threat to Marriage
Marriage is being challenged by a number
of state and federal court decisions that seek to overthrow the
customs, laws, and social norms of human experience.
1993, a plurality of the Hawaii Supreme Court declared that the
state's existing marriage statute was a form of "sex
discrimination" that could be justified only by a "compelling state
years later, a Hawaii trial court ruled that the state's marriage
law violated the Hawaii constitution. In response, the people of Hawaii
amended their state constitution to allow the legislature to
reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples, and the legislature
passed a Marriage Protection Act that defined marriage as the union
between one man and one woman.
1996, in the face of this unprecedented circumstance, the United
States Congress passed a bipartisan federal Defense of Marriage Act
(DOMA), signed by then-President Bill Clinton, that both defines
marriage "for all purposes of federal law" as the union of one man
and one woman and clarifies that the effect portion of the "Full
Faith and Credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution does not require
that states be forced to recognize as a marriage any union other
than that of one man and one woman.
1998, after cases in California, Florida, and New York failed to
establish the recognition of same-sex "marriages," a superior court
judge in Alaska declared that "the choice of a life partner is
personal, intimate, and subject to the protection of the right to
privacy" and ruled that the Alaska marriage statute violated the
In response, Alaska voters approved a constitutional amendment to
define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
next year, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that the legislature
must grant full and equal benefits of marriage to same-sex couples,
and the Vermont legislature was forced to pass an extensive "civil
unions" law that provides virtually all protections and benefits
afforded to civil marriage.
2003, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Lawrence v. Texas that
homosexuals, like heterosexuals, have the right to "seek autonomy"
in their relationships and cited "personal decisions relating to
marriage" as an important area of that autonomy. The Court also
noted that whether a majority of the public opposes "a particular
practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law
prohibiting the practice."
Massachusetts Rejects Marriage
November 2003, seizing upon the premise dangled before it by the
U.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas, a divided Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court ruled 4-3 that homosexual couples are
legally entitled to marriage under the Massachusetts state
court decided that traditional marriage "is rooted in persistent
prejudices" and "works a deep and scarring hardship on a very real
segment of the community for no rational reason." Marriage is "a
caste-like system," added the concurrence, defended by nothing more
than a "mantra of tradition."
the premise that marriage is "an evolving paradigm," t he court reformulated the common-law
definition of civil marriage to mean "the voluntary union of two
persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others," declaring that
"the right to marry means little if it does not include the right
to marry the person of one's choice, subject to appropriate
government restrictions in the interests of public health, safety,
court stayed its entry of judgment for 180 days "to permit the
Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light
of this opinion."
When the state Senate asked whether a "civil unions" bill would
satisfy the ruling, the court rejected the alternative, writing
that traditional marriage amounts to "invidious discrimination" and
that "no amount of tinkering would remove that stain."
state legislature in convention responded by passing an amendment
to the state constitution that would effectively overturn the
court's decision, but because of the lengthy constitutional
amendment process in Massachusetts, the amendment cannot be enacted
prior to the scheduled enforcement of the decision, which the court
adamantly has refused to delay further.
The Redefinition of Marriage
argument of these judges is that homosexual "marriage" is simply
the extension of privileges to a discriminated class in the name of
civil rights. The parallel is made to the Supreme Court's striking
down, as instances of arbitrary and invidious discrimination,
statutes that had been drawn according to race, in particular laws
against interracial marriage.
this analogy does not work. The first court faced with this
argument as the ground used to justify same-sex "marriage" made the
obvious point: "in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there
is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely
upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex."
is happening is no minor adjustment, a slight change in degree that
just extends benefits or rights to a larger class, but a
substantive change in the essence of the institution. It does not
expand marriage; it alters its core meaning, for to redefine
marriage so that it is not intrinsically related to the
relationship between fathers, mothers, and children formally severs
the institution from its nature and purpose.
Expanding marriage supposedly to make it
more inclusive, no matter what we call the new arrangement,
necessarily ends marriage as we now know it by remaking the
institution into something different: a mere contract between any
general, fundamental social changes in long-standing traditions and
institutions should be seriously considered only where there is
strong consensus for change, as well as clear evidence and powerful
reasons for the modification. Change for the sake of social
experimentation and perceived "cultural progress" is inherently
dangerous and jeopardizes the ordered liberty that is necessary for
a free society.
change threatens the very coherence and stability of marriage as a
social institution. Social science today tells us quite a bit about
how the experiments of recent decades with household forms other
than the intact family--such as cohabitation and single
parenting--have affected children and adults alike.
Changing the definition of marriage--or
even remaining neutral as to that definition--breaks down the very
argument that gives marriage its unique and preferable status in
society. If marriage becomes just one form of commitment in a
spectrum of sexual relationships rather than a preferred monogamous
relationship for the sake of children, the line separating sexual
relations within and outside of marriage becomes blurred, and so
does the public policy argument against out-of-wedlock births or in
favor of abstinence.
Based on current evidence and settled
reasoning, it would be a terrible folly to weaken marriage either
by elevating non-marital unions to the same position or by lowering
the institution of marriage to the status of merely one form of
A New Status Quo
Imposed by the courts, the redefinition of
marriage is the legal establishment of a new status quo. While it
is not correct to say that homosexuality or the advance of same-sex
"marriage" is solely to blame--traditional marriage measured in
terms of divorce, cohabitation, illegitimacy, and fatherlessness
has been in decline for some time--the judicial redefinition of
marriage, forced by the push for same-sex "marriage," essentially
codifies and affirms these trends.
time, this new legal status quo will be upheld, applied, and
enforced throughout our laws, with implications that go well beyond
the immediate decision. With the establishment of homosexual
"marriage" as a matter or right, a whole host of laws and
regulations will be triggered to assure non-discrimination and
Consider a few possibilities:
- Freedom of
Association. If homosexual "marriages" are recognized by
federal and state governments, there will be no principled reason
to oppose new federal laws forbidding discrimination in hiring
based on sexual orientation. Churches, synagogues, mosques,
religious schools, and faith-based charities, as well as secular
organizations of every kind, would be subject to a new kind of
Speech. The legalization of homosexual "marriage" would
invite an ongoing assault on individuals and organizations that
uphold traditional marriage or have moral or religious objections
to the practice of homosexuality. By definition, all dissenters
will find themselves at odds with the new political ethos and are
likely to be stigmatized as prejudiced and discriminatory. Such
characterizations already have been made by activists, politicians,
and judges who are sympathetic to the arguments for same-sex
"marriage." The legalization of homosexual "marriage" will greatly
accelerate these pressures to marginalize the nation's religious
communities and the values that define them. In some countries,
speaking publicly against homosexuality has been criminalized.
- Education. The deconstruction of
marriage will affect what children are taught in virtually every
subject at public schools. Students will be instructed that
marriage, like slavery before it, is a vestige of America's
discriminatory past that was overcome by the latest step forward in
the advancement of civil rights. At the very least, heterosexual
and homosexual relations will be presented in public schools as
fundamentally equivalent expressions of individual autonomy.
told, these changes represent a significant escalation of the
cultural debate and divide in our society and could well threaten
the civil and religious liberty of individuals and organizations
that have moral or religious objections to the new status quo.
What Happens Now?
Advocates of same-sex "marriage" have
filed and will continue to file lawsuits in various states seeking
recognition of homosexual "marriage" as a constitutional right
under state law. At least 20 major lawsuits are pending in Alabama,
Arizona, California, Florida, Indiana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New
York, North Carolina, Oregon, Washington, and West Virginia. These
suits ask state courts to determine that state constitutional
provisions require the recognition of same-sex "marriage." To date,
these actions affect only individual states.
successful implementation of the Massachusetts court's decision
will create a strong precedent and significantly increase lawsuits
to force its ruling on other states. Inevitably, the organized
legal strategy that has brought the issue forward thus far will be
surpassed by the political and judicial activism that will result
as same-sex couples that are married in Massachusetts demand
recognition in the other 49 states.
is likely that, contrary to existing state laws, some state
officials, as well as some city and county officials, will
recognize same-sex "marriages" promulgated in Massachusetts.
problematic, same-sex couples that move from Massachusetts will
bring suit in other states, arguing that the state or U.S.
Constitution requires that their new state recognize their same-sex
"marriage" as valid. These judicial cases and actions by
individuals will run up against opposition in the 38 states that
have passed state Defense of Marriage Acts, as well as those states
that have pre-existing laws that define marriage as the union
between one man and one woman.
State courts might recognize same-sex
"marriages" pursuant to their state constitutions, overriding clear
state policy and state DOMAs. Thus, legal recognition of homosexual
"marriage" could be spread by way of state courts on a
state or federal court ruling that a state must recognize same-sex
"marriages" pursuant to the U.S. Constitution would assuredly lead
to an appeal into the federal court system and eventually bring the
case before the U.S. Supreme Court. This would very likely entail a
challenge to the federal DOMA.
Under normal circumstances, the federal
DOMA would survive constitutional scrutiny. Many thoughtful legal
scholars, however, believe that it likely would not withstand
activist judges using dubious interpretations of due process or
equal protection to advance their policy objectives. Given what is
at stake, it is risky to rely solely on the federal DOMA.
any event, the federal DOMA does not protect the nation from state
judges like those in Massachusetts who misconstrue their state
constitution to establish same-sex "marriage." Nor does it address
various local jurisdictions that openly ignore and violate state
if individual states can withstand or postpone direct legal
challenges, all states will have to address the very practical and
myriad legal problems that same-sex "marriage" generates regarding
such issues as adoption, child support and custody, state benefits,
and inheritance and property rights. These complications and the
legal inconsistencies that are likely to result will increase the
likelihood that, at some point, the U.S. Supreme Court will choose
to, or be forced to, intervene and resolve the issue for the
the Supreme Court of the United States gets a word on this issue,
it will likely be the last. Assuming the justices follow the
logical trend of their own precedents and jurisprudence of recent
decades, it would be inconsistent for them not to redefine marriage
according to their notions of autonomy, equality, and social
progress. And if the United States Supreme Court does redefine
marriage, the Court will expect, and many will argue, that the
American people should accept their mandate as the final resolution
of the issue.
What Can Be Done?
institution of traditional marriage can be protected through
actions taken in the following arenas.
Concerted efforts must be made at every
level to educate the public, policymakers, and political leaders
generally about marriage and current threats to the institution of
marriage. While there is a growing consensus in favor of
traditional marriage, public confusion about what to do invites
strong and consistent moral and political leadership. Several
themes are important to this effort.
- A clear and compelling case must be made
for the nature, substance, and societal importance of
- Marriage as a unique relationship between
a man and a woman should be defended on the basis of empirical
evidence and studies provided by social science.
- A strong case must be made that redefining
the institution of marriage undermines the institution, destroys
the case for promoting an ideal of marriage, and threatens
religious liberty and private institutions.
legal battles are yet to be fought at the state and federal levels,
and each of these battles is significant. Judicial decisions in
Massachusetts and other localities are but the opening moves in a
long-term legal strategy to impose homosexual "marriage" through
the courts, circumventing lawmakers and the people before they have
an opportunity to react through legislation or the electoral
Above and beyond defending existing state
laws and legal precedents that uphold traditional marriage, a
primary objective of legal policy is to defend the federal Defense
of Marriage Act from inevitable constitutional challenge. In
addition to upholding the constitutional rule of law in the face of
activist courts, a major purpose of this legal strategy is to slow
down the judicial juggernaut as much as possible so that
legislatures and the people will not be excluded from this debate
and precluded from acting to protect marriage.
should be kept in mind that, while the marriage debate is now a
national issue, it is not primarily a federal policy matter. By
tradition, and in accord with our constitutional division of power
between the federal government and the states, marriage is
recognized and regulated by state law. Most of the key battles,
therefore, will occur at the state level.
- State Marriage
Statutes. The first line of defense is for states to
review their laws concerning marriage and clarify and strengthen
public policy preferences that favor traditional marriage. Based on
recent legal decisions, states would be wise not only to clearly
define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, but also to
state, as a matter of public policy, the purpose and rational basis
of state marriage policy and the grounds upon which marriage is
reserved only to a man and a woman. The long-standing practice of
assuming or leaving ambiguous the definition and purpose of
marriage is now an invitation for an activist court to deem policy
upholding traditional marriage as being irrational.
This makes it necessary to restate, in a clear
and more compelling way, the reasons that sustain the traditional
laws on marriage. Massachusetts faces judicially enforced same-sex
"marriage," in part, because it lacked a strong public policy on
marriage, allowing the court to declare that there is no rational
basis for upholding the traditional definition of marriage. It must
be made clear that public policy stems from legitimate concerns and
objectives, not animus or animosity, and that it bears a real and
substantial (i.e., rational and reasonable) relevance to the public
health, safety, morals, and general welfare of society.
DOMAs. Under traditional legal principles, a marriage
performed in one state is valid in another state as long as that
marriage does not violate a strong public policy of the other
state. If states want to avoid being forced to recognize the
validity of same-sex "marriages" originating in other states, they
must clearly and unambiguously declare their state policy and their
refusal to recognize same-sex "marriages" from other states.
To date, 38 states have state Defense of
Marriage Acts. However, the language in these laws varies widely.
Alabama, for instance, has a strong DOMA, but those of Illinois and
Iowa are rather weak. Ohio, which already had a DOMA, recently
acted to strengthen its statutory language. Massachusetts did not
have a state DOMA. Efforts should be made to establish DOMAs in
every state and to clarify and strengthen existing state DOMAs
Constitutional Amendments. The best way to defend against
a state court that might seek to overturn state public policy or
force recognition of another state's marriage policy is to amend
the state constitution to establish a state constitutional policy
on marriage. Three states--Alaska, Nebraska, and Nevada--have
passed constitutional amendments that prevent same-sex "marriage."
Hawaii amended its state constitution to allow the legislature to
reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.
At this time, 16 states have pending
constitutional amendments to protect marriage, and at least three
others are expected to introduce such amendments soon. The
accumulation of state constitutional amendments will also send a
powerful signal to federal courts that might be faced with a
decision regarding same-sex "marriage," showing a clear and
compelling trend in state policies on the issue. The U.S. Supreme
Court will be hard-pressed to ignore the recent passage of 20 or
more state constitutional amendments that reiterate and
constitutionalize clear state policy preferences that uphold
Petitions. States concerned about the growing threat to
marriage ought to petition the U.S. Congress to voice their
concerns and express their views about federal legislation and a
constitutional amendment to protect marriage. At the same time,
they should inform the members of their state congressional
delegations about their state policies on marriage. States should
also be mindful that they have the power, under Article V of the
U.S. Constitution, to call for a convention to propose a
constitutional amendment. The passage of such petitions would put
pressure on Congress to act to protect marriage.
There are several things that Congress
could do to support and defend marriage. Consistent with DOMA,
Congress could call on the states to clarify their marriage
statutes and define in state law, and in state constitutions if
necessary, that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
Congress could also take steps to enforce
the definition of marriage established in DOMA when it reauthorizes
federal programs and otherwise enforces federal policy, ensuring
that all federal policies are consistent with that definition.
Having authority over the District of Columbia, which currently has
no laws defining marriage and has no DOMA, Congress could pass
legislation consistent with the federal DOMA that protects the
institution of marriage in the District of Columbia.
addition to being good policy, such actions would serve as
important proxy votes to build the case for defending marriage and
help establish an argument for an amendment to the U.S.
Constitution. The most important and responsible step Congress can
take to preserve marriage is to send a constitutional amendment
that protects the institution of marriage to the states for
A Constitutional Response
Policymakers ought to be disturbed when
judges circumvent the lawmaking process and assume the powers of
legislating. They should also be troubled by the ease with which
overzealous judges are willing to disregard clear laws and
legislative intent because it fails their perception of
rationality. Constitutional government is threatened when judges
alter the definition of social institutions and reinterpret duly
approved laws in order to achieve their own policy preferences.
Policymaking decisions with vast societal
implications should be made through the lawmaking process in a way
that reflects broad-based public opinion and is informed by
long-established traditions and the principles of social order.
do we need to amend the U.S. Constitution? In our system of law,
the powers of government are divided between the federal and state
governments. The framers rightly left marriage policy, like so many
other things, with the states. Marriage, however, is no mere policy
issue. The meaning of marriage concerns the very integrity and
essence of one of the primary elements of civil society.
is the definition of marriage a matter for state-by-state
experimentation. Society is not harmed when high-tax states live
side by side with low-tax states: The market adjusts to the
inconsistency. This is not the case where substantive differences
exist with regard to the definition of marriage. A highly
integrated society such as ours--in which issues such as property
ownership, tax and economic liability, and inheritance and child
custody cross state lines--requires a uniform definition of
free society, certain fundamental questions must be uniformly
addressed and settled for the good of that society. States cannot
impair the obligation of contracts, coin their own money, or
experiment with forms of non-republican government. And Americans
learned the hard way that the nation could not endure half slave
and half free.
marriage is a fundamental social institution, then it has the same
value and import throughout all of society. As such, it is not only
reasonable but also obligatory that traditional marriage be
preferred and defended in the law and, if necessary, protected in
the U. S. Constitution.
Preserving marriage in the Constitution
does not mean that marriage must be completely nationalized or that
it should become the regulatory responsibility of the federal
government. Policy decisions concerning questions such as degrees
of consanguinity, the age of consent, and the rules of divorce
should remain with the states.
Decisions to extend certain individual
benefits to remedy legitimate grievances that stop well short of
marriage--i.e., that do not undermine the distinctive status of
marriage or create a parallel institution to marriage--are policy
questions that should be the responsibility of state legislatures.
But we must protect the integrity of the institution of marriage as
such by defining the societal boundaries and determining the limits
beyond which no part of society can go.
amendment should recognize and preserve the institution of marriage
and should reserve marriage to unions between one man and one
woman. In addition, it should block judges--at the state level as
well as the federal level--from redefining marriage, creating
"civil unions," or overriding a legislature's decision concerning
the benefits of marriage.
constitutional amendment that defines marriage and blocks the
actions of overzealous judges would protect the states' capacity to
regulate marriage by sustaining it as an institution. If we are to
guard the states' liberty to determine marriage policy in accord
with the principles of federalism, we must first ensure that the
institution itself is not redefined out of existence or abolished
A Defining Moment
designed by the framers of the U.S. Constitution, the amendment
process is neither an exclusively federal nor an exclusively state
action: It is a shared responsibility of both Congress and the
states representing the American people. By intention, it is a very
difficult process. To succeed, an amendment proposed by Congress
must have the votes of two-thirds each of the House of
Representatives and the Senate, and it must then be ratified by
three-quarters of the states.
Constitutional amendments ought to be rare
and should be pursued only after careful and serious consideration,
when it is necessary to address an issue of great national
magnitude and when there is broad-based support among the American
people throughout the states.
Despite our reluctance to amend our most
sacred law--despite the significance of the endeavor and awesome
task of changing the Constitution--the critical nature of the
recent course of events dictates this action.
challenge to marriage is unambiguous and the threat of a nationwide
redefinition of the institution is increasingly imminent. There is
now strong and growing agreement--as reflected in poll after poll
and, even more significantly, in the laws of three-quarters of the
states--that traditional marriage should be protected. President
George W. Bush recognized the "overwhelming consensus in our
country" when he called on Congress to send an amendment protecting
marriage to the states.
as the imposition of same-sex "marriage" is not at all inevitable,
with concerted effort, it is by no means impossible to amend the
U.S. Constitution to protect marriage. Indeed, the circumstances
are ripe for a successful effort at this time.
very consideration of an amendment that focuses on marriage would
be an important vehicle for a nationwide debate about the nature,
purpose, and legal status of this fundamental societal institution.
States are already strengthening their laws, passing state DOMAs,
and considering state constitutional amendments--all of which
should be encouraged. A meaningful national conversation about an
amendment to defend marriage will further this process and become
the centerpiece of a larger and longer-term effort to promote and
strengthen marriage and the family.
the options are either to allow a few activist judges to redefine
marriage by fiat or to amend the Constitution to reflect the
settled will of the people, the choice is clear. It is imperative,
for the sake of constitutional government, that we proceed with the
democratic process of amending the Constitution.
overriding importance of marriage to our nation's future and the
difficult and lengthy amendment process make it crucial that we act
is a defining moment for our nation. Americans are a greatly
tolerant and very reasonable people. They did not choose this
debate or force this issue on the nation. But now that the issue
has been joined and the decision has been forced, we must act in
accord with our basic principles and deepest convictions to
preserve constitutional government and the foundational structure
Matthew Spalding, Ph.D., is Director
of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies at The Heritage
May 17, 2004 | Executive Summary