Politics: Marriage Amendments

Instapundit agreed with this article by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson. To put it bluntly I think the article is crap. I was going to give the article a thorough fisking, but frankly I don't have the time. There is just too much wrong with it. Here are a few highlights:

• Wilkinson suggests that ordinary legislation will suffice to settle this issue. Since he already admits that the Massachusetts Supreme Court invented state constitutional rights in their ruling, obviously this is not the case. Only a state constitutional amendment will settle the issue.
• Wilkinson states that a constitutional amendment (state or federal) will "shackle future generations" to this policy. Remember Prohibition? Well no probably not, it was repealed before most of us were born. Hey wasn't that a constitutional amendment?
• He states that constitutions are not the place to enact policies. Except for things like the Federal budget cycle and many other important policy considerations which are in the US Constitution.
• He states that the Federal Marriage Amendment is giving the states "constitution fever." Actually the FMA is going nowhere, but Massachusetts pointed out that state amendments are necessary to prevent local abuses of power. They are cropping up everywhere because of checks and balances not a few conservatives.

I really really really expect better from a Federal judge.