I did, and got a response from Senator Lautenberg:
Thank you for contacting me about the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.The United States Constitution provides the framework for our government and the foundation upon which our laws are based, and it is the primary guarantor of individual freedoms. It is a document of critical importance, and I believe it should be amended only in extremely rare circumstances.
The Federal Marriage Amendment that has been introduced in Congress provides that "marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor State or Federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
I believe that this proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution on marriage is unwarranted. Current federal law, the Defense of Marriage Act, P.L. 104-199, prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriages and allows individual States to recognize or refuse to recognize such marriages performed in another State. Furthermore, proposed civil union laws in several States, including New Jersey, provide significant benefits, such as health and retirement benefits, to gays and lesbians in a demonstrated, committed relationship.
Finally, with the exception of prohibition of alcohol -- which was repealed -- this would be the first amendment to our Constitution that expressly restricts individual rights. This would be a most unfortunate shift in the heritage of our Constitution as a symbol of civil liberties and the use of amendments to expand individual rights.
For these reasons, I do not support the initiative to pass a Federal Marriage Amendment. Thank you again for contacting me.
I disagree with the Senator on the need for the amendment, but I find it revealing that his statement "this would be the first amendment to our Constitution that expressly restricts individual rights" seems to imply that his interpretation of the Second Amendment, that it doesn't apply to individuals, is incorrect.
Come to think of it, he has also written to me to state his opposition to the Washington DC school voucher bill, stating that it violates the separation of church and state, a liberal interpretation of the First Amendment that restricts individual rights. Ok I know - this is real loose thinking, but so is the argument for the right to homosexual unions.
While I'm in favor of the FMA, ultimately the Constitution is just a dead letter in the hands of an activist court. Liberal courts will find ways to circumvent anything - they've made up a right to abortion, and the word isn't even in the Constitution. A misleading word or contrasting thought will be interpreted in a way which makes a command just a suggestion or creates a new right ex nihilo. What we really need is integrity on the bench, judges who interpret words according to the meaning of their authors.