Flutterby™! : Marriage Amendment

Next unread comment / Catchup all unread comments User Account Info | Logout | XML/Pilot/etc versions | Long version (with comments) | Weblog archives | Site Map | | Browse Topics

Marriage Amendment

2002-05-15 15:13:15+00 by Dan Lyke 11 comments

Be afraid: An organization called Alliance for Marriage is pushing a Federal Marriage Amendment:

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.

[ related topics: Sociology Law Civil Liberties ]

comments in ascending chronological order (reverse):

#Comment made: 2002-05-15 16:19:37+00 by: Superfly

I don't understand how allowing gays and lesbians to legally be with the one they love has anything to do with heterosexuals. How exactly does this affect heterosexuals? Anyone know?

#Comment made: 2002-05-15 16:39:26+00 by: Dan Lyke

It could involve the special protections afforded to heterosexuals who believe in the institution to be removed. Hell hath no fury like hypocrites caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

#Comment made: 2002-05-15 17:42:53+00 by: ziffle

For one thing, where does the federal government find the right to limit this - interstate commerce? And for another thing, why is the government involved in who gets married to whom, anyway? Why is this a government issue? Only because the government has enacted laws restricting money flows to marrieds versus non-marrieds, is it an issue at all - follow the money - there is the issue. They steal from all of us and then determine who receives the ill gotten gains.

#Comment made: 2002-05-15 19:03:47+00 by: starbreeze

thats fucked up. that negates the whole point behind the "union" in Vermont, that allows homosexual couples to gain the benefits of marriage (i.e. insurance, making medical decisions, etc). i guess that's what they want, but why mess with someone else's life? there are a lot of hmomsexual unwed couples who have been together a lot longer than many heterosexual married couples, and are denied rights such as insurance through their partner and making decisions on the other's behalf if something were to happen. very unfair.

#Comment made: 2002-05-15 19:07:13+00 by: Pete

ziffle, the amendment would give them the right. There's no such thing as an unconstitutional amendment--it IS the constitution.

#Comment made: 2002-05-15 20:30:01+00 by: Jerry Kindall

There are a ton of amendments proposed every year. They are rarely passed. In order for it to ever be ratified they first have to get someone in Congress to propose it (this they seem to have done), then get two-thirds of both the Senate and the House to vote yay, then get three-quarters of the individual states to ratify it. In other words, it'll never happen. Remember, the last amendment to be ratified took 203 years!

The only reason to get really worked up over this is to stoke your sense of righteous indignation.

#Comment made: 2002-05-15 20:40:47+00 by: Jerry Kindall

It's badly worded, too, and the people behind it are disingenuous. They claim that the amendment is intended only to prevent courts from "legislating from the bench" on the matter, and that states or the Federal government would still be free to legislate other definitions and benefits of marriage. The key word is "construe" -- they apparently intend that laws and constitutions not be stretched to justify anything but heterosexual marriages. If a law clearly and forthrightly says something to that effect, no "construing" would be necessary and thus this amendment would not apply.

That doesn't seem too terrible on the face of it, except for the fact that it's somewhat unclear and is thus bound to be "legislated from the bench" repeatedly in Supreme Court decisions.

I stand by my opinion -- it's dead, Jim.

#Comment made: 2002-05-15 21:08:12+00 by: Dan Lyke

Well yeah, it's all about the righteous indignation! Woot! Woot!

But yeah, that two-thirds, especially of the state legislatures, would make it difficult to pass.

#Comment made: 2002-05-15 21:16:53+00 by: Phil Wolff [edit history]

Some folks think marriage needs protection. So they want to pass a law. An amendment to the constitution. Just to define marriage. Like this is the best way to improve the quality of life in the US.

It's just not enough.

Let's take it further...

Frankly, we should:

  1. Distinguish between civil unions (government recognition) and marriage (church recognition).
  2. Make civil unions gender neutral, not dependent on marriage.
  3. Fire the bill's sponsors:



#Comment made: 2002-05-15 21:20:49+00 by: Phil Wolff

Can anyone find the bill on thomas? http://thomas.loc.gov/

#Comment made: 2002-05-22 02:20:27+00 by: meuon

I vote for Phil..