One debate has finally ended. Or it should now. Mitt Romney is the only candidate for the protection of traditional marriage.

Romney, of course, has been fighting for the FMA for some time as part of his larger effort regarding MA's Supreme Council's incorrect decision in Goodridge.

The positions of the other candidates have now been rounded out in this regard:

From the Thompson camp:
"Fred Thompson does not support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage."

McCain and Giuliani also oppose.

Why? Usually they point to federalism, claiming that it should be left up to the states to decide. After all, they say, aren't we upset about judges imposing their will on everybody else? Isn't this the same thing? The answer is: absolutely not.

The reason we get so upset about judges creating new law with the Constitution is because the proper way to create such law is have a Constitutional amendment. When a people, who are sovereign, undertake to organize themselves into a society, they have the ability to decide how they will be governed. In our case, we developed a social contract known as the Constitution. We agreed to be bound by it. We agreed on methods of changing it. No where did we agree to have it changed by judges.

We also agreed on an allocation of powers between the federal government and the states (AKA federalism). The authority for this allocation rests in the Constitution and it can be changed by the very process that we agreed on in that document itself. There is no other independent authority for that allocation other than arguments of policy.

To hide behind federalism when talking about a constitutional amendment is simply silly. It is the same as arguing that no amendment to the Constitution should ever be passed because that's not the way we originally set it up. If we had set it up as an unchangeable document, it would have never passed in the first place.

So, the real debate is whether or not the sovereign people of our country should pass an amendment protecting marriage. The arguments for protecting marriage as a social institution that is primarily for the purpose of protecting children and that seeks to secure the emotional and financial bonds of a mother and a father to their children are extensive. My purpose is not to elucidate them here.

Mitt Romney has also explained the need for a federal approach:
"Some argue that our principles of federalism and local control require us to leave the issue of same sex marriage to the states—which means, as a practical matter, to state courts. Such an argument denies the realities of modern life and would create a chaotic patchwork of inconsistent laws throughout the country. Marriage is not just an activity or practice which is confined to the border of any one state. It is a status that is carried from state to state. Because of this, and because Americans conduct their financial and legal lives in a united country bound by interstate institutions, a national definition of marriage is necessary."

You may disagree. No worries. But if you think that the country should stick with traditional marriage, Mitt Romney is your only choice.

Thanks to Evangelicals for Mitt for the heads up.