The Federal Marriage Amendment Revisited
In 2004, Congress's attempt to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment came up quite short of the votes needed for passage. That version of the FMA included both a prohibition on same-sex marriage and civil unions. This year, Congress will be bringing a different version that does not include language on civil unions.
This is a good move. Social movements often try to get more than they can realistically get. While I do not favor civil unions, trying to prohibit them at the federal level simply gives the Amendment's opponents more to whine about.
I doubt the new amendment will pass, but it should be a more difficult vote for members of Congress. The fact is, we are still a lot of votes away from getting this passed even with this wording change. If this year's vote does not go any better, I suggest we try an alternative approach that should limit excuses apart from the substantive issues. Right now, Democrats (and some Republicans) say that the issue should be left to the states. So let's try this-we should pass a marriage amendment that grants states the power to regulate marriage without interference from courts. It could so something like this:
"Marriage in the United States shall be defined by the legislatures of the individual States, and with respect to federal law, by Congress. Neither the United States Constitution nor the Constitutions of the respective States shall be construed to require marriage or any legal relationship approximating marriage other than the union of one man and one woman, unless the United States Constitution or the Constitutions of the several States explicitly define marriage or the legal obligations thereof to be something other than the union of one man and one woman."
This wording should satisfy the demands of those who argue states should define marriage. There may be some objection to my suggestion that state Constitutions should not be construed to require same-sex marriage. But all in all, it is a democracy-supporting amendment. It would prevent the travesty that was Goodridge v. Massachusetts (which stated incredibly that man/woman marriage in Massachusetts has no rational explanation or underpinnings). It would also require states to pass a state constitutional amendment if they want to change marriage from something other than one man and one woman.
Alternatively, if this still had difficulty passing, one could simply take out the references to state Constitutions or the requirement that state Constitutions be amended. Thus, it would merely preclude federal courts from using the U.S. Constitution to change marriage. While still allowing a Goodridge to take place, this would at least make sure the U.S. Constitution is not further trashed by activist judges in this area.
This is a good move. Social movements often try to get more than they can realistically get. While I do not favor civil unions, trying to prohibit them at the federal level simply gives the Amendment's opponents more to whine about.
I doubt the new amendment will pass, but it should be a more difficult vote for members of Congress. The fact is, we are still a lot of votes away from getting this passed even with this wording change. If this year's vote does not go any better, I suggest we try an alternative approach that should limit excuses apart from the substantive issues. Right now, Democrats (and some Republicans) say that the issue should be left to the states. So let's try this-we should pass a marriage amendment that grants states the power to regulate marriage without interference from courts. It could so something like this:
"Marriage in the United States shall be defined by the legislatures of the individual States, and with respect to federal law, by Congress. Neither the United States Constitution nor the Constitutions of the respective States shall be construed to require marriage or any legal relationship approximating marriage other than the union of one man and one woman, unless the United States Constitution or the Constitutions of the several States explicitly define marriage or the legal obligations thereof to be something other than the union of one man and one woman."
This wording should satisfy the demands of those who argue states should define marriage. There may be some objection to my suggestion that state Constitutions should not be construed to require same-sex marriage. But all in all, it is a democracy-supporting amendment. It would prevent the travesty that was Goodridge v. Massachusetts (which stated incredibly that man/woman marriage in Massachusetts has no rational explanation or underpinnings). It would also require states to pass a state constitutional amendment if they want to change marriage from something other than one man and one woman.
Alternatively, if this still had difficulty passing, one could simply take out the references to state Constitutions or the requirement that state Constitutions be amended. Thus, it would merely preclude federal courts from using the U.S. Constitution to change marriage. While still allowing a Goodridge to take place, this would at least make sure the U.S. Constitution is not further trashed by activist judges in this area.
posted by Anonymous @ 9:34 PM
<< Home