Federal Marriage Amendment

[Sabre]

Posted By Senator Wayne Allard, co-author of FMA

FACTS ON THE MARRIAGE AMENDMENT

Five of my Senate colleagues and I have introduced a resolution to amend the U.S. Constitution. Our amendment would define the institution of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. This topic that has generated an enormous amount of information, some credible and some not. I want to set the record straight here on my website so citizens know exactly what my amendment will do, and what it will not do.

The language I introduced is simple and direct: the institution of marriage “shall consist only of the union between a man and a woman.” This definition is neither new nor radical. It is a concept embraced by a majority of Americans of all religions, races and political affiliations. A recent national Wirthlin poll revealed that 62 percent of Americans agree with this definition and that 57 percent support an amendment to the Constitution protecting marriage. The Amendment further reads that no law, at any level, “be construed to require that marital status or legal incidents thereof be conferred on unmarried couples or groups.” Simply put, this means that only a marriage between a man and a woman will be legally recognized as a marriage. This does not prohibit state legislatures from creating other types of legal unions.

Opponents of this amendment argue that it is not that simple. I submit that it is. Opponents argue that a Constitutional definition of marriage threatens to undo existing state authority to allow for the creation of civil unions. This claim is absolutely false.

My Amendment is specific to the traditional union of marriage. Regardless of alarmist interpretations by those with broader political agendas, that definition does not seek to define or negate any power held by state legislatures to create civil union statutes and any benefits that may apply to that status. With a Constitutional definition of marriage, democratically elected state legislators would remain free to define civil unions without having the courts thrust those definitions upon them. Further, the institution of marriage remains sacred and protected from activist courts as well. While I have long advocated keeping the federal government out of the homes of citizens, I prefer the courts stay out of their homes as well.

There are no hidden intentions behind my proposal. The Amendment is a scant 52 words dedicated solely to defining the union of marriage in the way all 50 states already agree upon.

The Amendment reads as follows: “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State or Federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”

By defining marriage, but going no further, the Amendment does not impose on the authority of the states. A series of courts - not state legislatures, but courts - have sought to redefine the institution of marriage in recent years. This in a country where not one state legislature has sought to change the definition of marriage.

This Amendment is an expression of the legislative process – as it exists in every state in the union – over judicial activism that is allowing lawyers and courts to dictate public policy without a single vote.

As it does in every session, Congress faces a number of foreign and domestic challenges in the coming year. As in every session I remain optimistic that the Congress, working with the President, will tackle these challenges with appropriate vigor. The Senate must remain vigilant and focused on the War on Terrorism, the status of troops deployed in the Middle East, and the fiscal realities of these and numerous other priorities. For generations of Americans and their children it is my belief that protecting the tradition and union of marriage is among the important policies the Congress should address.

[Silat]

Grab those core Neo con supporters as the polls drop . That is what this is about.

[Furious]

Stupid waste of time and money.

[Lizking]

Bundle it with the Flag Burning amendment, knock out 2 non-issues with one stone.

[fd ski]

so what happend to state rigths and **** ?

[Curval]

Complete sillyness.  Don't your legislators have anything better to do?

[Sandman]

Originally posted by fd ski
so what happend to state rigths and **** ?

They went away in May, 1865.

[FUNKED1]

Originally posted by Silat
Grab those core Neo con supporters as the polls drop . That is what this is about.

2 minutes for misuse of political terminology.

[Blooz]

You need only look to the 18th and 21st amendments to see what you get when you try to legislate morality.

The constitution is a tool to limit government, not the governed.

[fd ski]

Originally posted by Sandman
They went away in May, 1865.

Yeah, ain't that something ?
Smaller government, no goverment in personal lives... unless for Jebus that is

[Sabre]

I only need to point to the quote in my sig to highlight why this amendment is needed to strengthen state's rights.  As it stands right now, the will of the people in this matter, in state after state, is being overturned by un-elected activist judges.  The institution of marriage in Scandinavia is crumbling as we speak, a result of the liberalization of the definition of marriage.  A majority of USA citizens do not want to see that happen here, and have passed both state and federal laws to prevent it.  Judges keep over-ruling the will of the people.  The Defense of Marriage Act was supposed to stop this, but continues to be circumvented in the court systems.  

I for one have written to my senators to make my opinion know to them.  I encourage all US citizens, regardless of which side of this issue you fall on, to insure that the FMA recieves a fair hearing.  To allow it to be defeated if you support it -- or passed if you oppose it -- without making your voice heard is to give over your right to complain.

[Chairboy]

Constitutional ammendments are swords, not scalpels.  This is a bad idea, in addition to being a ridiculous power play of the religious right over everyone else.

[Sandman]

Marriage doesn't need strengthening by Congress.

[Dead Man Flying]

Election-motivated.  By this time next year it won't even be on the radar screen.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[Chairboy]

My marriage doesn't need help from congress either.  Perhaps the people who support this are having trouble keeping theirs together?  Maybe we should, instead of objecting, have sympathy to the thousands of marriages that are in danger of being dissolved because a gay couple might marry somewhere.  

We should bake cakes and meals to bring to crying christians that are doubled over with emotional pain because two women in a neighboring state have pledged to spend the rest of their lives together.  

Brothers, sisters, feel compassion in your hearts for the oppressed religious people in our country who cry out to the empty sky above for one, just one, lightning bolt to strike down the sinners.  For they are people too, and it's sad to be sad.